Author Topic: I remember some old posts discussing the AH's Spitfire IX as a Spitfire F.IX  (Read 2364 times)

Offline Angus

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 10057
I remember some old posts discussing the AH's Spitfire IX as a Spitfire F.IX
« Reply #75 on: January 16, 2005, 09:05:16 AM »
Look at what Glenmorangie said:
"Verdicts: P-51, roomy and comfortable. The seat adjusts vertically and the rudder pedals adjust. Definitely flyable for me ( hah! ignore the 150 hours of taildragger time and the addtional 250 hours of T-6 time recommended by our P-51s pilot, which I don't have! ).

Spit: Looks flyable, but would be tight. I can't remember if the pdeals adjust, but the seat does. The pilot is about 3-4 in shorter than me and he said it is tight because the addition of the aft cockpit shortened it down. How a guy 6'6" would fit in this thing is a mystery. I did not actually sit in the airplane.

Yak-9: Barely flyable. Shoulders against the cockpit sides at the canopy. Seat adjustable, rudder pedals not adjustable. Knees uncomfortably high. My friend who flys it is about 3 in shorter than me, but just as stocky. Canopy clearance would be tight, but OK with the seat lower.

109: Impossble. Seat adjustable on the ground ( 2 or 3 positions available, I think the mechanic said ), rudder pedals not adjustable. Distance from seat-back to pedals, maybe 24". Possible to close the canopy, but the top of my head brushed it. Shoulders totally hunched forward to fit in ( might be helped if the seat were lowered ). Would be very uncomfortable, and nearly impossible to get enough leverage to work the rudders. My knees were literally in my chin. The Germans had guys over 6' flying these things and I've got no clue how they did it."

I've peeked into those, and feel slightly jealous about his fittings.
Anyway, pretty much what I thought whenn peeking into those.
Note that he does include some measure figures.

Anyway, I suggest that we give this measure pond a rest untill some of us pops up with actual numbers.

I should be able to, but it will be a year or so before I can have a go at a 109 AND Spitfire cockpit.

So all we have until then is anecdotal data. Most of those, German and allied rank the cockpits as similar, the 109 being slightly smaller.

Of course, no-one save Izzy will try to make a P51 saloon propogandaly look similar to a 109 can.



Then on to Heydrich.
I just wish that bastard had groundlooped and lost his blond head in a 109!!!:D
It was very interesting to carry out the flight trials at Rechlin with the Spitfire and the Hurricane. Both types are very simple to fly compared to our aircraft, and childishly easy to take-off and land. (Werner Mölders)

Offline Crumpp

  • Parolee
  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3671
I remember some old posts discussing the AH's Spitfire IX as a Spitfire F.IX
« Reply #76 on: January 16, 2005, 09:20:33 AM »
Better bail out of this thread now Izzy.  You won't have anyone left at the bottom of your sig!

Crumpp

Offline Angus

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 10057
I remember some old posts discussing the AH's Spitfire IX as a Spitfire F.IX
« Reply #77 on: January 16, 2005, 11:01:29 AM »
LOL, Crumpp, did he just add you?

Anyway, he will do about anything BUT ignoring those.
Welcome to the club of us merry gents!
It was very interesting to carry out the flight trials at Rechlin with the Spitfire and the Hurricane. Both types are very simple to fly compared to our aircraft, and childishly easy to take-off and land. (Werner Mölders)

Offline thrila

  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3190
      • The Few Squadron
I remember some old posts discussing the AH's Spitfire IX as a Spitfire F.IX
« Reply #78 on: January 16, 2005, 11:15:19 AM »
So is the spit equal to two 109's or three?
"Willy's gone and made another,
Something like it's elder brother-
Wing tips rounded, spinner's bigger.
Unbraced tailplane ends it's figure.
One-O-nine F is it's name-
F is for futile, not for fame."