Bf 109, trimming and Finns

[MiloMorai]

Originally posted by Kurfürst

Selective storytelling, as always.

Not at all Barbi. Just your reading what you want to read. And, there was still problems.

The report starts off with complaints so the canopy had problems before the mods were done.

[Angus]

Hmmmmm...this.
BTW, glad to see that Izzy is awake again  

"Originally posted by Kurfürst
-cramped cockpit both in width and in height

True, as on other WW2 fighters."

Hehe, more true, for I belive there was no WW2 fighter with a tighter fit than the 109.
I am translating a piece of a book about 109 taxiing and takeoff, will post ASAP

[Karnak]

HoHun,

No, sorry.  I just have multiple pilot testimonies.  Robert Stanford Tuck, for example, found the Bf109's cockpit significantly more cramped than the Spitfire or Hurricane, though he definately liked the raised rudder pedals.

Angus,

I think the Yak 9/3 series might beat the Bf109 series for cramped cockpits.

[niklas]

btw, in case of several allied bubble hood designs i´d like to know whether the hood opened always at hight speeds. The "subpressure" (?) at the front top edge maybe didn´t allowed a natural movement back.
 I mean, the Fw-190 used explosive rounds to catapulte the hood away, there must have been a reason why they used this system.

niklas

[Angus]

Yeah, interesting point.
I think the later 109 hood also had a little charge to jettison it, so it sounds pretty logical.
The bubbles of P51D, P47, even P38?

[MiloMorai]

Originally posted by niklas
btw, in case of several allied bubble hood designs i´d like to know whether the hood opened always at high speeds. The "subpressure" (?) at the front top edge maybe didn´t allowed a natural movement back.
 I mean, the Fw-190 used explosive rounds to catapulte the hood away, there must have been a reason why they used this system.

niklas

If there was a problem, do you not think a solution simular to the 190 would have been implimented. Not saying there was not. Also the Allied 'bubbles' were bulged out more on the sides than on the 190.

The Fw190 used 1(one) 20mm round. When the NASM was restoring their F-8 they found a live one.

[bunch]

Originally posted by Kurfürst
....Hanna didn`t find it very restrictive otoh....

I dont think she ever complained about any german combat aircraft she was allowed to fly, not even the Me163 after she almost died in it

[HoHun]

Hi Karnak,

>No, sorry.  I just have multiple pilot testimonies.  Robert Stanford Tuck, for example, found the Bf109's cockpit significantly more cramped than the Spitfire or Hurricane, though he definately liked the raised rudder pedals.

I think there's no doubt that the cockpit was small, but small and functional are not opposites :-) With the quality of information that's available today, and the excellent threeviews we're used to, I'm suprised I haven't seen any to-scale cockpit cutaway drawing yet. That would be highly interesting! :-)

Regards,

Henning (HoHun)

[HoHun]

Hi Niklas,

>I mean, the Fw-190 used explosive rounds to catapulte the hood away, there must have been a reason why they used this system.

Well, they didn't have this initially, but the hood just stuck on the first jettison attempt.

When the last Air Warrior version was under development, they posted a pressure distribution illustration for the Me 109F, which showed low pressure on the canopy flanks immediately aft of the windscreen, and high pressure at the aft end, so I'd guess its front edge flipped up immediately on release, exposing it to the airstream and allowing it to depart quickly. I'm not aware of any explosive system for the Me 109, anyway.

(The fixed rear part of the canopy was jettisoned along with the moving part, by the way.)

Regards,

Henning (HoHun)

[Meyer]

Originally posted by bunch
I dont think she ever complained about any german combat aircraft she was allowed to fly, not even the Me163 after she almost died in it

Hmmm I think Kurfurst wasn't talking about  Hanna Reitsch, but Mark Hanna.

[bunch]

In the future, please clarify all Hannas!

[Charge]

"The "subpressure" (?) at the front top edge maybe didn´t allowed a natural movement back.
I mean, the Fw-190 used explosive rounds to catapulte the hood away, there must have been a reason why they used this system. "

AFAIK in 190 there was a pressure build-up just aft the canopy which forced the canopy shut in high speeds and thus needed a stronger force to force the canopy in the slipstrem which would force it further away from the a/c.

I cannot see any other reasonable jettison system for earlier 109 canopy type than one that requires the canopy to flip to the right side as normally and then off the a/c. Anything else eg. jettisoning upwards would cause it to jam halfway during jettison in the worst case and if it would come off the neck amour would hit the pilot in the head. (wasn't this the case, the orders were to tilt your head forward to prevent this???) The later erla type may have been such as to come off straight from where it was as the aft part was now part of the canopy and it would assist it to come off during jettison as it was angled. It would still need a somewhat hefty push because of pressure against the canopy.

Meimberg described one bail-out in his book when he literaly flew off from center of a fireball which lead me to believe that if you know that you are going to die the canopy WILL come off be it stuck or not. But what if you are wounded...

Imagine sitting in an F1 car where as much as 3Gs may throw you constantly from side to side. Would you sit in a roomy cockpit or in a tight one? My choice is clear: I'd sit as tightly as possible. But the headroom would be a problem in 109, then again, how tall was the tallest Finnish pilot, "Tall Jim"? 195cm?

Honestly I don't think a badly jettisoning canopy was a problem only in 109. Maybe it did come off eventually so that those pilots had a possibility to tell about those problems and maybe in other a/c a sticking canopy would not come off at all, so those pilots did not live to tell about it?

-C+

[pasoleati]

Originally posted by Grendel
This report demands some notification to what the plane was being compared. The previous primary fighter types of FiAF were the Brewster B-239, Curtiss Hawk 75 and Fiat G.50. Compared to those the plane was much different beast, lacked aileron trims and required more space for landing and takeoff. After some time the Finnish pilots seem to have used mostly carrier style landings, coming in slats out, in shallow turn and sitting down with 3 points, then stopping quickly.

Grendel, have you even bothered to read the report in question for you write utter BS? If you care to check the speeds Kokko uses for landing it is clear that the slats WERE OPEN when he landed the thing. And he makes the importance of 3 point landings clear. Don´t attempt to find subliminal meanings where there are none. The fact is that Kokko considers the 109 to require long runway on take off due to its low rate of climb before gear and flaps are retracted. Flapless TO some 50% greater ground roll. The fact is that Kokko considers the 109 to float for an extraordinary long distance (with SLATS OPEN!!!) just before touching down. This is emphasized in the report very clearly.

[pasoleati]

Originally posted by Kurfürst ,
-cramped cockpit both in width and in height

True, as on other WW2 fighters.

"You gotta be joking. Please point to a source noting that e.g. Corsair or Hellcat cockpits were cramped. I´d recommend you to personally see for it by visiting e.g. FAF Museum in Tikkakoski. Here you have side by side a 109, a Pyörremyrsky, a Hurricane, a Humu and a Fokker D.XXI. 109´s cockpit is the smallest of these by far. A friend  (maybe 170 cm tall, no more) of mine tried the 109 cockpit. He said that it was really cramped. And that with light summer clothing without pilot gear.

So, unless utter BS is the Hungarian way of truth, better check what you put in print."  

-canopy swings to side

And? So does on Me 262.

-wide canopy framing obstructs visibility greatly

Stiegler, Hanna didn`t find it very restrictive otoh.

"Have you checked how tall was Hanna (Mark Hanna)? Ditto for Stiegler. Kokko was a tad under 180 cm and he found it cramped."

-lack of in flight adjustable rudder and aileron trim tabs

what niklas said. Other 109 pilots didn`t complain about it.

"Which other pilots? Stuttering old men 60 yrs afer the event? Did German regs forbid inclusion of such tabs?"

-unretractable tailwheel

Tailwheel WAS retractable on F-1, F-2, F-3, F-4, G-1, G-2, G-3 and G-4. If Kokko flew a plane that was w/o one, it comes as an atypical special case, or a very late production a/c.

-blind flying instrumentation poor

Considering we speak of a daylight fighter, what`s the surprise ? Otherwise it had the same thing as other fighters of the time for blind flying - artifical horizon etc. 109s built as bad weather variants had full instrumentation for nightflying, as well as autopilot, and from 1943 extra electrical navigation equipment, DF radio, and the Y-system that was used to navigate LW bombers over English nights w. hundred meter accuracy.. I am not aware if similar was ever mounted on allied planes.

"Kokko makes it clear that the artificial horizon and turn-and-bank indicator were of poor quality displaying correctly only very minor changes of bank and direction. There was no rate of climb indicator at all."

btw, Kokko`s report also mentions the G-2 climbs at 4900 fpm with 1.3ata, 30 min rating. [/B]

"Have I ever disputed that RoC?"