Author Topic: Comparison of Spitfire/109 cocpit size (Read 2328 times)

KurfÃ¼rst · « **on:** December 01, 2005, 06:00:54 AM »

Just that using scale drawings and taking care to have the same scale on both drawings, I thought it would be interesting. I don't see much of a difference, really.

Angus · « **Reply #1 on:** December 01, 2005, 09:27:13 AM »

Across there should not be much of a difference.
But, we have more than 2 dimensions, see.....

Kev367th · « **Reply #2 on:** December 01, 2005, 09:57:08 AM »

You got the vertical dimensions also?

Always remember a program where pilots from both sides sat in each others rides.
The Spit pilot commented on how cramped the 109 cockpit was/felt, and the 109 pilot said he loved the Spit cockpit, felt more roomier.

KurfÃ¼rst · « **Reply #3 on:** December 01, 2005, 11:31:40 AM »

No scale 'blown' side views which would show the inside of the Spitty cocpit I am afraid, I've got for the 109 though. Externals don't tell much.

But I'd not be surprised if a Spit pilot would feel strange in the 109, the seat's back was inclined there and the legs were high up (to resist G-loads better), whereas the Spit was completely different, the pilot sitting upright like an armchair.

Karnak · « **Reply #4 on:** December 01, 2005, 12:46:02 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Kurfürst
But I'd not be surprised if a Spit pilot would feel strange in the 109, the seat's back was inclined there and the legs were high up (to resist G-loads better), whereas the Spit was completely different, the pilot sitting upright like an armchair.

Bob Tuck liked that aspect of it. What British pilots didn't like was how cramped it was.

As Kev said, the German pilot on that show (I have seen it too) like the Spitfire's cockpit because it felt roomier to him. It was not just British pilots prefering the Spit's cockpit.

Now, the Fw190's cockpit is on a whole other level and just blows the Bf109's and Spitfire's away.

MiloMorai · « **Reply #5 on:** December 01, 2005, 01:10:15 PM »

The German pilot was Oblt Hans-Ekkerd Bob who was an Experten with 59 'kills' in WW2.

Angus, sent you an e-mail with better drawings than Kurfy's.

Karnak · « **Reply #6 on:** December 01, 2005, 01:18:39 PM »

If I recall correctly, the RAF pilot was Bob Doe, an ace in the Battle of Britain.

Angus · « **Reply #7 on:** December 01, 2005, 02:45:13 PM »

I have some text from Neville DUKE.
He tried the fit of a 109.
Will post ASAP....busy cooking...

home-made-horse-sausage actually!

Charge · « **Reply #8 on:** December 01, 2005, 02:45:50 PM »

What is "room" good for in a cockpit?

-C+

MiloMorai · « **Reply #9 on:** December 01, 2005, 02:51:22 PM »

A better one than Kurfy's.

The Spitfire outline shows the top of the canopy.

Karnak · « **Reply #10 on:** December 01, 2005, 03:25:03 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Charge
What is "room" good for in a cockpit?

-C+

Looking around you and having better situational awareness.

KurfÃ¼rst · « **Reply #11 on:** December 01, 2005, 03:34:46 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by MiloMorai
A better one than Kurfy's.

The Spitfire outline shows the top of the canopy.

And what this is good for, Milo? It doesn't show the cocpit space, merely the relative the cross-section. We would need to know what are the confines of the cocpit - there's a lot of space running under the pilot, used for tankage, supporting the main spar etc. We would need to know where the cocpit floor is, and align the two the same place, not the baseplate of the aircraft.

You simply placed the 109 fuselage lower to show the Spitfire wider.

Section 4 is interesting btw. It shows why the 109 pilot enoyed an advantage in forward view. The inverted-vee DB engine allowed for a narrow cowling top and good deflection view forward.

Karnak · « **Reply #12 on:** December 01, 2005, 03:42:40 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Kurfürst
Section 4 is interesting btw. It shows why the 109 pilot enoyed an advantage in forward view. The inverted-vee DB engine allowed for a narrow cowling top and good deflection view forward.

That is true, but in visibility to the sides and rear the Spitfire was markedly better.

MiloMorai · « **Reply #13 on:** December 01, 2005, 03:49:40 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Kurfürst
And what this is good for, Milo? It doesn't show the cocpit space, merely the relative the cross-section. We would need to know what are the confines of the cocpit - there's a lot of space running under the pilot, used for tankage, supporting the main spar etc. We would need to know where the cocpit floor is, and align the two the same place, not the baseplate of the aircraft.

What good is it? Well it shows how much room at the shoulders the pilot had in the Spitfire compared to the 109. Anyone can see that clearly.

Actually your diagram is pretty useless.

KurfÃ¼rst · « **Reply #14 on:** December 01, 2005, 03:55:59 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Karnak
That is true, but in visibility to the sides and rear the Spitfire was markedly better.

Tell me how was the view better to the sides. Last I checked it, no WW2 single engined fighter had problems looking out the window to the sides. Distortion of the blown canopy of the Spitfire WAS a problem otoh. Quite a few British report I've seen note that the distortion-free flat perspex glas of the 109 was preferred over the curved one on the Spit. Probably the 109s with the steel headrest had somewhat worser to the extreme rear, but also enjoyed better protection. When the transparent armor glass was introduced in mid-1943, the 109 had marked advantage in rear view over Spitfire.The last I checked the Spitfire's rear view was completely blocked by the headrest. So how was it better, and why was the need to install a draggy external mirror if it was already so good?

I think this pretty much summerizes what sort of 'rear view' the Spitfire had :

Just about nothing.