Author Topic: Comparison of Spitfire/109 cocpit size (Read 2498 times)

Karnak · « **Reply #45 on:** December 02, 2005, 09:51:55 AM »

In addition to what Kev already said, that report likely is specific to the rigors of operating off of a carrier at sea. A much more stressful situation than operating off of a land base.

And a last point, nobody here has said the Spitfire's cockpit wasn't cramped. It obviously was. It just wasn't as cramped as the Bf109's.

J_A_B · « **Reply #46 on:** December 02, 2005, 10:23:08 AM »

Things weren't all bad with the 109. The benefits of the pilot's seated position have already been mentioned. Many of the 109's controls were placed thoughtfully (for example, placing the flap control and the elevator trim right next to each other). While the 109's control stick offered poor leverage for pulling out of dives, it probably wasn't much if any worse for lateral motion than the Spitfire's divided control stick.

Both the Spit and the 109 were small, light fighters. Even the Mustang's cockpit is pretty cramped; the Spit and 109 are both uncomfortably small. This is partly the reason why many fighter pilots of the time were short.

J_A_B

Angus · « **Reply #47 on:** December 02, 2005, 01:20:14 PM »

So the Spitfire cockpit didn't feel that much roomier to Stiegler?
Roomier but not that much.
Pretty true.
Rall said the 109 cockpit was cramped and all allied aircraft he flew, including the Spitfire were better in the cockpit.
And his advice against the Spitfire: Don't try to follow a Spitfire into a climbing turn, - which funnily fits very well with the comments of many allied pilots.
Funny.....

KurfÃ¼rst · « **Reply #48 on:** December 02, 2005, 01:56:53 PM »

Of course Rall said that Angus... he also 'said' the 109G climb time to 6000m was 6 mins, which curiously is the exact same value William Green and his offsprings claim for the '109G', and from where authors not very educated in fighter performance get their 'knowladge' from... and then put into some well-known people mouth.

It's rather curious why would Rall would give such advice to his pilots, against planes he didn't even fought yet, given he served on the Eastern front did not shoot a Spitfire until 1943, and then it was some old SpitV that wasn't quite near the Gustav in performance.

Pooface · « **Reply #49 on:** December 02, 2005, 02:09:20 PM »

when i was about 5, my granddad (commodore in the navy) took me around the RAF museum. he, being a bit of a negotiator, managed to get me into the cockpits of a spitfire (mk1 i think) and a 109 (early war for sure, e4 im 99% sure), after closing time. i was only 5, but there was a distinct size difference. in the spit, you had lots of headroom (i was standing on seat), and plenty of room for the arms. the 109 however, i had to crouch, and there was very little room to move my head, and there were trim wheels and clutter all over the sides, leaving very little room. now i was 5, and not lying in the seats, but the general impression was that the spit felt a lot more roomy

ramzey · « **Reply #50 on:** December 02, 2005, 02:39:39 PM »

when you sit in 109g6 its like small asian in a car, head just above fuselage
also feel claustrofobic compared to spit mkXVIe where you seat like in royce-royce.
Spitfire have much mre space for arms also much better possibility of head / body movement. (if you are not strap)

Karnak · « **Reply #51 on:** December 02, 2005, 02:47:13 PM »

This is a silly "debate". Kurfurst isn't going to convince us and we're not going to convince him, so it is pointless to continue.

MiloMorai · « **Reply #52 on:** December 02, 2005, 03:08:56 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Karnak
This is a silly "debate". Kurfurst isn't going to convince us and we're not going to convince him, so it is pointless to continue.

It just another one of Barbi's anti-Spit campaigns he recycles every so often like the showing of syndicated old TV shows. Might sucker in some noob with his Goebbelistc propaganda.

One would think after years of re-runs of his Spitfire ignorance threads, he would be somewhat better educated. He won't convince 'us' as we are open minded, unlike like his near sighted tunnel vision bigotry and all hate the 109 paranoia.

Anyways he needs an outlet for his 109 is the uberist as, so I have been told, he got the boot or a vacation from Ubi.

The next 'showing' will be the '109 has greater range than the Spitfire' followed by 'the Spitfire had no bombload'.

Charge · « **Reply #53 on:** December 02, 2005, 03:11:22 PM »

Convince to what? That 109 had actually a smaller cockpit or what kind of bad effects it had on pilot?

I kinda got confused in the mid way of the thread so I'd appreciate a short summary.

I have only seen some subjective opinions which do not allow for anykind of universal conclusions.

-C+

Karnak · « **Reply #54 on:** December 02, 2005, 03:26:36 PM »

Charge,

That the Bf109 had a smaller cockpit that did cause some problems.

Mind you, that isn't to say the Bf109's cockpit doesn't include some things that are markedly better than the Spitfire's as it most certainly does. It is just about size, at least if you read the OP it is.

Kev367th · « **Reply #55 on:** December 02, 2005, 03:36:20 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Charge
Convince to what? That 109 had actually a smaller cockpit or what kind of bad effects it had on pilot?

I kinda got confused in the mid way of the thread so I'd appreciate a short summary.

I have only seen some subjective opinions which do not allow for anykind of universal conclusions.

-C+

Confusion comes from an attempt to use a report on Seafire 47 with a bubbletop, to prove the Spitfire with a regular canopy had poor vision.
Then even saying in the original post it was a Spitfire 47 (never existed), the land based RAF equivalent was the Spitfire F.24.
Poor Kurfy can't sort out his Spitfires from his Seafires, never mind about the different Mks.

No-one has claimed the Spit had a huge cockpit, just that it was roomier (at least headroom wise) than the 109.

Milo I disagree - Next will come the claim that a single 109K in Outer Mongolia used 1.98ata, therefore they all must have

.

KurfÃ¼rst · « **Reply #56 on:** December 02, 2005, 03:50:25 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Karnak
Charge,

That the Bf109 had a smaller cockpit that did cause some problems.

sure Karnak. We have seen scale drawigns, they show it's pretty much the same. Franz Stiegler is also saying there was hardly any difference.

Against that, the parrot commando of three or maybe four die-hard raffanatics chanting the mantra that '109 has smaller cocpit, 109 has smaler cocpit, Spitfire bigger, Spitfire bigger' is a little short of facts...

Karnak's mantra in this thread :

"That is true, but in visibility to the sides and rear the Spitfire was markedly better."
"The bulged canopy allowed much better rearward vision than the Bf109's flat canopy."
"Spitfire's cockpit ....wasn't as cramped as the Bf109's."

Joseph Goebbels said : If something, even obviously untrue is repeated enough times, people will believe it. Repeating is enough, there's no need to have a factual basis of it. Right, Karnak and co?

But the desperation of Kev trying to dismiss the British report calling the truth on the Spitfire cocpit, describing it cramped in which the pilot sits hunched... and the claim that the previously claimed divine bubbletop canopy are actually worser than the Malcolm for search view. Kinda funny. Or sad.

If we can believe your claims, the Spitfire 'evolved' from a nice and roomy canopy with excellent visibility into a prison cell of a hunchback with a tiny window to the sunshine.

Kinda grotesque, this Spitdweeb world, isn't it?

PS : 1.98ata still hurts it seems, all the Spitdweebs are so mad about it.

Kev367th · « **Reply #57 on:** December 02, 2005, 04:13:52 PM »

It WASN'T a report on a Spitfire.

It was a report on a post war Seafire 47 with a bubbletop canopy - GOT IT NOW? huh.

You tried to use a report on a canopy like this -

To justify your claim on a canopy like this -

You even stated INCORRECTLY it was a Spitfire 47 report.

Maybe if you actually compared apples to apples you'd get taken more seriously.
P.S. Wouldn't hurt to learn the difference between a Seafire 47 (not Spitfire 47) and a Spit F.24 also.

You realise that the late model Spits had little in common with what would probably be dubbed the classic Spitfire?

1.98ata doesn't hurt - You've NEVER proved any 109-K4 actually used it LOL.

KurfÃ¼rst · « **Reply #58 on:** December 02, 2005, 04:39:14 PM »

Of course there wasn't any 1.98ata 109K-4s and G-10 in use. Keep telling yourself.

After, the case about the Spitfire cocpit size is getting clearer for everyone, and hotter for you, so you have to change the topic to somewhat completely different.

Regarding 1.98ata use, if anyone interested read http://kurfurst.bravehost.com . It's all there regardless for what a few fanatics like Neil, Mike or yourself wishes for.

Kev367th · « **Reply #59 on:** December 02, 2005, 04:45:20 PM »

Still clinging to your little fantasy, well it's good to have a rich fantasy life.

Anyway back on topic -
Why use a report from a post war SEAFIRE 47 not Spitfire 47 to try and justify your claim on what would be called the classic Spit with a highback?

As I said the late marks had little in common with them -
e.g. Seafire 47 (as in your report) -
Spiteful tail
Totally redisigned wings
Different undercarriage
Bubble canopy
Contra rotating props

Yet you use this to try and prove the size of 'classic' Spit cockpit and your claim of poor visibility in the 'classic' spit models.

Find a similar report for a classic 'highback' Spit you might gain some credibility.

One definate problem was the poor forward visibility on take-off/landing due to the long nose, excarbated with the even longer nose on Griffon Spits.