Spit vs. Messer : Design vs. Design

[Crumpp]

Source is from Alfred Price, no less.

Be careful with Price.  He has some really good information but the timeperiod was just too close to the event to get the whole picture.  Lots of technical information that was:

1. Classified

2.  Sitting at the bottom of 30,000 other documents waiting to be sorted and cataloged.

3.  Veterans were not as willing to talk then as they are now.

4.  Data is much easier to retrieve in the electronic age so you can sift through a lot more raw volume to find a specific.

Crumpp

[Guppy35]

Originally posted by Crumpp
Be careful with Price.  He has some really good information but the timeperiod was just too close to the event to get the whole picture.  Lots of technical information that was:

1. Classified

2.  Sitting at the bottom of 30,000 other documents waiting to be sorted and cataloged.

3.  Veterans were not as willing to talk then as they are now.

4.  Data is much easier to retrieve in the electronic age so you can sift through a lot more raw volume to find a specific.

Crumpp

What time period are you speaking of Crumpp?  I've dealt with Price and he's been most helpful.  I was doing most of my Spit veteran correspondance and meeting back in the early-mid 80s and they were more then willing to talk, in particular when they realized I had some idea of what I was asking about

Dan/Slack

[Crumpp]

What time period are you speaking of Crumpp? I've dealt with Price and he's been most helpful.

I am talking about published works.  Certainly not meant to degrade or disrespect the man.  In fact I would love to talk to him.  Mainly I was referring to "FW-190 in Combat".  He was missing some key elements when he wrote the book on the later war FW-190A's.  Not a lick on him, I just don't think the information was available in 1977.  Not without several months on your hands to sift through index cards, retrieve microfilms, and hunt and peck through them.  I would have to ask Larry, but I don't even think the Smithsonian had their complete Focke Wulf collection cataloged in 1977.  

The Smithsonian just completed adding the first of the Axis Air Technical Documents section to a searchable electronic data base.  The first set to be cataloged is the Focke Wulf collection.  Of course you have to travel to the Smithsonian and book an appointment in the archives to use it.

Peter Rodeike touches on it and even attempts to bring some depth and scope to the late war FW-190A's.  He does a fantastic job but again more information is available today than when he did his work.

they were more then willing to talk

They are even more willing to talk today.  Ask any Historian (degreed in History) or Psychologist and they can tell you why.

Crumpp

[Kurfürst]

Little back on subject. Franz Stigler on the Bf 109s cocpit, his answer to the statement that it was cramped :

"Uhhh, well… we didn’t need a shoehorn to get in, but pretty close.  But it was comfortable when we were sitting.  Everything is right there.  This one had a big uh…cabin (pointing to a pic of a 262)…was also comfortable…it was bigger, we had to get used to it…there was lots of room in there."


Franz Stigler flew the Bf 109 F, G and K series, a total of 487 combat missions. He also flew the Spitfire Mk V, IX, and XIV, Me 262 and FW 190.

[Crumpp]

On the cockpits:

I think a lot of that is just personal preference.  Some pilots loved the 109's cockpit.

I have seen the same thing with the FW-190.  Some evaluations call it "cramped" and looking at the Flugwerk video it does look cramped!  In fact some of the photos I have it looks more like a helmet than a canopy.  It looks like you did not have to use your neck muscles to support your head when pulling G's, you could lean it on the plexiglass.

Can't wait to get into White 1 and shoot some video.  

However just as many praise it as having the best all around vision they had seen in a fighter.  In 1942 it most likely did especially to guys used to flying the Spitfire.  Looks to me like the reality is that both Luftwaffe fighters were just small dimensionally.  This gave them both advantages and disadvantages.  One of pilots I am interviewing flew for the Luftwaffe's version of the "enemy test flight".  He says he could not imagine spending eight hours in an FW-190 with the canopy closed.  Comparatively a P51 would not be a big deal and USAAF pilots towards the end of the war did spend long hours flying.  He raised a good point though.  When combat begins and your arms suddenly weigh 5 times normal, you do not want to be reaching very far at all to get to your controls.

Crumpp

[Angus]

Pretty close to a shoehorn then.
I half-dumped into a Spitty cockpit once. (Camera job). Anyway, It would have roomed me nicely.
Oh, how big am I? Well, not so big, but not so small either.
BTW, post your email swiftly, and I'll email you the picture I took.
It was a MKV from the Eagle squadron as far as I know.
Even Izzie, promote an email an I'll send you a great pic.
BTW, is Stiegler still alive?

Then on to Price.
He has collected a lot of data and published some excellent work.
My quote was from him. It is a direct quote passed on by him, from a German fighter Pilot. Not a complicated issue.

[Angus]

Oh, Crumpp lad, nice to see you.
You posted while I was typing.
Curious about the 190 cockpit size. I always thought the layout was very comfortable. It's differently layed out than the 109 of course, and quite modernly. I remember some pilots complaining about how much backwards the seat was. Well, but that was done for G. However, when your backwards tilt extends a certain amount, checking 6 gets worse.
Do you have any info on that sort of ergonomics?

As a sideshow, I work in a tractor cockpit all the time.
There is lots to view backwards, - usually the machinery is being pulled, and the vital parts to view are really on your low six!
So, it's chk 6 like 6 times a minute, up to 12 hrs in a stretch.
I've had to throw up because of this, in the beginning of cropping season. I can also not wear a shirt, because the collar will eventually give me a wound.
I can turn my head much farther to the right than the left. Habit, and also a lot of machinery is on your right.
I have 10.000 hrs+ in the cockpit....
WW2 Pilots often complained from neck wounds from rubbernecking.
Sitting upright gives you better mobility with your neck.
Leaning backwards gives you better tolerance for G, but a more restricted movement for the head.
My from-experience 5 cents

[Crumpp]

He has collected a lot of data and published some excellent work.

That pretty much sums it up with one small exception:

He has collected a lot of data for the time and published some excellent work based off of the information available.

The only "mistake" he makes is holding up an FW-190G3 which the RAF tried to reconvert to FW-190A5 status as representative of late war FW-190A's vs P51B and prototype Griffon Spitfire.

Oh, Crumpp lad, nice to see you.

You too Angus.  Been busy lately with stuff for the Foundation.  Speaking of which.....When are you going to join!

On the FW-190 Cockpit.  It was very modern, just look at the side panels.  Everything was designed to be right at the pilots fingertips reducing the amount of movement he needed to make in combat.  It helped him to concentrate on the fight, not the flying.

At the same time the FW-190 is an amazingly simple airplane.

As for the leaning back and rearward vision.  All I can relate is what the evaluations say in that it had excellent rearward vision.  I believe the RAF even said "The all around search vision of the FW-190 being exceptionally good makes it difficult to surprise."
Your feet sit level with the bottom of the seat.  Kind of like sitting on the floor against the wall with your back slightly inclined and your knees slightly bent.  

Our fuselage is coming along nicely.  In about a year and half I will have a completely restored to original FW-190 cockpit to sit in. If you make it over here, I will put you in it.

Crumpp

[Angus]

Oh, dear.
Didn't yet read that far in Price's work.
Anyway, you 190 DWEEB  

[Crumpp]

Anyway, you 190 DWEEB  

Yep!

The Dweebfire's have discovered my secret!!





Crumpp

[Angus]

ROFL
Well, got it through Ultra.
Anyway, some more of that cockpit.
Correct me if I am wrong, but I belive it is the most ergonomic cockpit of WW2. Yet, 109 veterans found it rather bad.
I wonder if it isn't just the layout. The 109 cockpit was rather much different, and as it is, you rather like your old horse.
(Impresses me how the 109 pilots describe the Spitfire, hehe)
Do you have pic of your project?
Well, you know where to mail them.
BTW, what's your team in AH? I'd wing you in a 190 if you like.

Regards

Angus

[Crumpp]

Yet, 109 veterans found it rather bad.

I am sure some did not like the change at all.  Oscar Boesch flew both the Bf-109 and the FW-190.  He loved the FW-190.

Do you have pic of your project?

Sure!

Here is where you join!  

http://www.white1foundation.org/sponsors.htm

Here is the pilot's seat:

http://www.white1foundation.org/parts/pilotseat.jpg

http://www.white1foundation.org/parts/pilotseat2.jpg

Left side cockpit panel:

http://www.white1foundation.org/parts/console_2a.jpg

http://www.white1foundation.org/parts/console_2b.jpg

Some knick knacks:

http://www.white1foundation.org/parts/artifacts2.jpg

http://www.white1foundation.org/parts/artifacts3.jpg

http://www.white1foundation.org/parts/artifacts6.jpg

http://www.white1foundation.org/parts/sanitatspack1.jpg

History of White 1:

http://www.white1foundation.org/white1_history_main.htm

I fly with JG54 in the Combat Theater.  I would be honored to wing with you, FW-190 or a Spitfire!!

Crumpp

[Kurfürst]

Now, just a last little input on the cocpit thing. Admittedly, the lenght and ferocity of the khmm, discussion on it grow out of proportion, for which I am to be blamed as well... sry guys! I think we can give those cocpits a rest, personally I am rather convinced that most of the WW2 fighter cocpits could be rightfully described as cramped, with a few notable expection of the largest plane like the P-47...

So here`s a picture from a good perspective on a G-10 c/p, taken from the JG300 guys. The cocpit dimensions were the same on all models, anyway.



He certainly does not have much of a shoulder room, but I doubt other fighters would be different in this - there was similiarly narrow fuselage on all inline fighters. The headroom doesn`t seem to be bad at all. Enough for the task, spending 1-2 hours in the plane. Hmm, on shoulder room I began to wonder. Maybe it was intended to give the pilot some support in manouvers, the last thing I would want to have in a roll is to bang my head to the sides constantly due to inertia.

As for the FW 190 vs. Bf 109 cocpit. Crumpp is right, the 190`s cocpit was space age for it`s time, and by far the coolest looking. The 109 cocpit is spartan, simple, well arranged, but I don`t think it was bad in this regard. It contained everything the pilot needed to do his task, all the important instruments right in front of him : COMBAT flying. The first reaction I looked on the 190 cocpit in sims was that "WOW, that looks cooler than anything". The second : "But I can`t find the speed gauge along all those cylinder temperature, oxygen pressure gauges". Even Brown, who was rather biased towards the 190 said the 109`s instrument panel was better arranged, or at least, it provided a quicker overview. One thing that made the 190 more popular with pilots I guess was it`s electrical trimming and flaps. On the other hand, this meant weight and possibility of malfunction.. Otherwise, the functionality of engine control was equivalent, both planes had the equal level of automatization, but the existence of the 109`s "Kommandogeraet" it not so well known - yet it was the same single lever system, everything being automatic.

Oh and angie, I would be greatful for that pic (why not post it right here?). The email address, as usual, executor@index.hu .

[Crumpp]

"But I can`t find the speed gauge along all those cylinder temperature, oxygen pressure gauges".

The 190's cockpit is a cool looking design IMO.  

As it was explained to me on the instrument arrangement:

1.  The instrument panel is divided into and upper and lower panel

2.  The Upper panel is larger and designed to house the primary instruments to facilitate combat pilots normal IIRC 5 instrument scan.  He does not have to lose peripheral vision to the front while scanning.

3.  The Lower instrument panel contains "amplifying" gauges for the engine in one quadrant and controls for the peripherals (stores release, gear, manual cooling flap controls, Oxygen system/status, etc...)

4. The left side panel has the throttle quadrant and trim controls.  The trim switch could a switch on the panel at the pilot's fingertips or I have seen it as a thumb switch on the throttle itself.  Same thing with the prop and mixture controls on the throttle quadrant.  The right side of the panel has very few flying controls if any.  It is mostly circuit breaker panels, compass deviation guides, map holders, Oxygen systems, etc..

5.  The center column contains the drop ordinance status and arming.

That about covers it.  You're right some of the 109 did not like the FW-190's cockpit.  I think it had more to do with an unwillingness to change what works for them.   There is nothing wrong with the 109's cockpit at all.  

Crumpp

[Angus]

That pilot looks "low".
Wonder how his view over the nose is???
BTW, could you crank the seat up?
Would you sit on the parachute? Maybe he doesn't have one?

Anyway, for Crumpp.
Lets Meet in the CT, grab some 190's or whatever, and kick some mules!
emmm...my time would be like 23:00 in London time..
Izzy: Join in yer 109