Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => Aircraft and Vehicles => Topic started by: Kurfürst 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.
(http://img124.potato.com/loc8/th_402_spit_109cp.JPG) (http://img124.potato.com/img.php?loc=loc8&image=402_spit_109cp.JPG)
-
Across there should not be much of a difference.
But, we have more than 2 dimensions, see.....
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
If I recall correctly, the RAF pilot was Bob Doe, an ace in the Battle of Britain.
-
I have some text from Neville DUKE.
He tried the fit of a 109.
Will post ASAP....busy cooking...
home-made-horse-sausage actually!
-
What is "room" good for in a cockpit?
-C+
-
A better one than Kurfy's.
(http://img.villagephotos.com/p/2005-12/1114844/spit109comp2.jpg)
The Spitfire outline shows the top of the canopy.
-
Originally posted by Charge
What is "room" good for in a cockpit?
-C+
Looking around you and having better situational awareness.
-
Originally posted by MiloMorai
A better one than Kurfy's.
(http://img.villagephotos.com/p/2005-12/1114844/spit109comp2.jpg)
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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 :
(http://img15.potato.com/loc77/th_1a3_spitrearview.JPG) (http://img15.potato.com/img.php?loc=loc77&image=1a3_spitrearview.JPG)
Just about nothing.
-
Originally posted by MiloMorai
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.
Oh, I am afraid that it's only your willingness to manipulate is what is clearly seen. You employed a simply trick, using the fact that the Spitfire pilot was sitting higher in the aircraft, and the 109 pilot lower.
If we would pilot's into your diagrams, the 109 pilot's head would be at the height around the spitty pilot's shoulders. Of course, shoulder room is bigger than headroom in any plane.
-
Originally posted by Kurfürst
Oh, I am afraid that it's only your willingness to manipulate is what is clearly seen. You employed a simply trick, using the fact that the Spitfire pilot was sitting higher in the aircraft, and the 109 pilot lower.
If we would pilot's into your diagrams, the 109 pilot's head would be at the height around the spitty pilot's shoulders. Of course, shoulder room is bigger than headroom in any plane.
Speaking of manipulation ... why did you post a 2D drawing when it should be compared in 3D ?
We are missing 2 drawing at least to compare we need up view (you provided it) but we also need lateral view ,cross section.
-
Ah, Kurfurst returns to good old "Spitfire is 100% crap and Bf109 is 100% good" form.
The bulged canopy allowed much better rearward vision than the Bf109's flat canopy. Further, the Bf109's humougous framing obscured greater chunks of the pilots field of view, a problem made worse by the pilot's close proximity to the framing due to the Bf109's cramped cockpit.
I'll take the Luftwaffe aces's opinion over your overblown sense of Bf109 superiority.
-
here's a 51 / 109 comparison from another cockpit thread.
I'll dig up a spitfire one and tag it here later -
(http://www.dangreve.com/51109.jpg)
-
Originally posted by Karnak
Ah, Kurfurst returns to good old "Spitfire is 100% crap and Bf109 is 100% good" form.
Well the 109 underwent numerous development during the war, the Spitfire still the same old worn 1935 airframe with a decade old design - in 1945.
It isn't really surprising that without any improvement to it, it was soon surprassed by the P-51, Bf 109, Fw 190 etc.
And it's only you who automatically assumes the 109 must have been worser in everything 100% the time. According to your, it was worser in all respects. I never EVER heard you to admit that it would be actually good at anything. Curiously, it still managed to down a record number of aircraft, including your allagedly superior Spitfires.
The bulged canopy allowed much better rearward vision than the Bf109's flat canopy. [/B]
Sure, Karnak, sure. That's why they fitted a rear view mirror to it... because they see to the rear so well... through the headrest. :D
Further, the Bf109's humougous framing obscured greater chunks of the pilots field of view, a problem made worse by the pilot's close proximity to the framing due to the Bf109's cramped cockpit. [/B]
Oh, I see, you entered the realm of fantasy now, where everything is dictated by Karnak's imagination.
Tell us Karnak how Spitfire pilots had so good vision through their headrest, lol. :D
Now let's see the section view in a correct manner, without MiloMorai's manipulation with sitting height; the drawings are corrected to proper cocpit floor position.
(http://img.villagephotos.com/p/2005-12/1114907/spit-109cp2.JPG)
Again, no serious difference can be observed if one doesn't use tricks all the time like Milomoron.
-
WOW!
im suprised any pilots could see out of the bubble canopies at all!!!!!!!!!!!!!
-
"Looking around you and having better situational awareness."
I don't think room has anything to do with it. If you compare the rear views of 109 and Spit I think you will note that they were about equal. The 109s went to glass headrest armour as the metal one restricted the rear-up view too much, and eventually the Spit got the bubble canopy. By then the Spit did have better 6-view, of course.
The cockpit bars do not restrict the view considerably as you can move your head and look behind them.
Belts restrict your movement? Not if you keep the hip belt tight and shoulder belts loose as the "Z-axle" acceleration or deceleration are not much of a problem in a/c.
-C+
-
Kurfurst,
The mirrors were an early attempt later surpassed by the bulged canopies. Mnay pilots had the mirrors removed.
You really, REALLY need to read up on Spitfire development if you actually think a 1945 Spitfire had the same airframe as a 1938 (not 1935) Spitfire.
I don't think you're stupid, just very biased. You see, whenever we give the Bf109 credit where it is due to accept that with no qualms, but whenever we point out a shortcoming you have a Pavlovian defense of the dang thing.
If we were to believe what you post about the Bf109 we would have to believe it had the range of a P-51D using an engine that produced significantly more power and yet consumed fuel at a quarter the rate. It had near perfect visibility and light control forces, to which it responded rapidly, at all speeds. You might concede that the Mitsubishi A6M actually could out turn it at lower speeds though, so I have to give you credit for that.
-
Originally posted by Karnak
The mirrors were an early attempt later surpassed by the bulged canopies. Mnay pilots had the mirrors removed.
I can see them even on just about any model of Spitfire, which indicates they were not very pleased with the rearview.
Originally posted by Karnak
You really, REALLY need to read up on Spitfire development if you actually think a 1945 Spitfire had the same airframe as a 1938 (not 1935) Spitfire.
Of course it wasn't, the original Spitfire was a rather clean aircraft, possibly the cleanest of it's time. By 1945 it was heavily littered with all sorts of bulges emerging : bulges for the undercarriage, bulges, stubs protounding for the cannons, large bulges for the Griffon, an extra an much bigger radiator... an ad hoc jobs, obviously.
If we were to believe what you post about the Bf109 we would have to believe it had the range of a P-51D using an engine that produced significantly more power and yet consumed fuel at a quarter the rate. It had near perfect visibility and light control forces, to which it responded rapidly, at all speeds. You might concede that the Mitsubishi A6M actually could out turn it at lower speeds though, so I have to give you credit for that. [/B]
Just would like to point out that actually I was showing how similiar the cocpit dimensions of the Spitfire and 109 were, while you were claiming that the 109 was lightyears worser. So look into your mirror.
In the meantime, i found some nice sideways drawings for the 109E and the contemporary Spit II. Well, as I expected, there's not much of a surprise, the cocpits are almost a perfect match in size.
(http://img.villagephotos.com/p/2005-12/1114907/spit-109cp3c2.gif)
I used the gunsights as reference, and matched them to get similiar pilot head heights. Points of interests :
- the 109 pilot sits much higher in the plane, which means Milo's overlay was invalid. Some variation of course is there because of the chute and individual seat positions
(http://img.villagephotos.com/p/2005-12/1114907/spit-109cp2.JPG)
- the sideway headroom, and the room for shoulders is very much the same
-the inclined seat of the 109, and the noticably higher rudder pedal position is also very interesting point - very much like a Formula -1 pilot!
-with the blown hood, the Spitfire pilot has somewhat more room upwards, but otherwise the cocpit dimensions are almost perfectly the same.
-the rear panel on the Spitfire which supposed to give some view to the rear is considerably smaller than on the 109 (on which it's actually a rearwards extension of the full canopy height)
-surprise (well not really, looking on spit cocpit photos), the legroom provided in the Spitfire is very small, the pilot has to sit with high knees high - now that explains the funny stick!
- forward view of the spitfire is poor, the windscreen blocks a lot and the engine cowling is much wider on the top, also more level whereas the 109's has a downward angle toward to prop, helping deflection shooting
- sideways window area is about the same. The 109 uses flat plexi panels, the Spit a bulged canopy that may cause some distortion and make picking up contacts at a distance difficult.
-
The higher rudder pedals on the Bf109 were definately superior. I recall that Tuck had his Spitfire modified to have raised rudder pedals after test flying the Bf109 as he liked them so much.
-
I've have yet to an "unbiased" luftwaffe opinion here:)......
Fundementally the 109 (all flavors) had two major drawbacks specific to cockpit ergonomics. The 1st has been covered and that is the pilots restricted view due to the combination of large framing and close proximity. The second and more profound is the combination of seating orientation stick postion and cockpit width. The 109 pilot had significantly less leverage due to the combination of factors above....since there were no hydrolically boosted controls this made flying the 109 much much tougher than the spitfire (or almost any other WW2 fighter for that matter).
-
Nice manipulation of my drawing Barbi and you accuse me of manipulation. :eek: You scaled the aux drawing to fit over the 109's outline when you should have moved the Spit outline that was overlaid on the 109's outline. So :( :( .
Where did you get the profiles from? Since you manipulated my drawing it would be nice to check to see if you did not manipulate the profiles.
So was the 109 littered with all kinds of bulges and protrusions.
-
109 / Spit and 51 -
"Scaled - Spit is about 9.14 meters to fit with the other planes.
109 pilot seat in red - with purple outline as 109 cockpit floor / front rear / wall / panel. Placed those outlines over where the pilots seats are on the 51 / spitfire. So from where the pilot was sitting - you can get an estimate of the differences... not using a line of sightsuch as a gunsight for reference, or a head posistion, because those can move.... I'm using the arse, cause that should be strapped in. :)
BTW - if you look at the 109 overlays on the 51 and Spitfire - you'll see that the gunsights of the 51 / spit do line up pretty close to where the gunsight is as posistioned in the 109.
(http://www.dangreve.com/51109spit.jpg)
-
Side view would be good in 109. pilots head being close to the sides is good, as he only has to turn his head to see. In a Mustang he might have to lean over a bit to see. Don't know on Spit, looks like similiar sit, just turn your head.
Now the view forward & down is better in 109 than Spit cause wings are less wide on 109.
Rear view with bubble as mentioned above is better for rear view. For whatever reason this didn't seem to be much of a prob for the experten in 109. rear view that is.
-
I am baffled why there should be such an argument over drawings when, as we have heard, a German and a British pilot sat in both planes, one after the other, and agreed that the Spitfire's cockpit was much roomier (I've seen that programme as well - in fact I think I've still got it on tape somewhere). Those comments are worth a thousand diagrams and measurements.
I'm not sure if it was in that programme or another that a British WW2 pilot sat in the 109 and commented that unless you were very small, the cockpit was so cramped that it was actually difficult to exert enough leverage on the stick.
I don't claim to be an expert on aircraft development, but even I know that the Spitfire went through a huge series of changes in its lifetime, including a new wing which was stronger and better-suited to cannon armament, a new fuselage with a bubble canopy, and so on. At the end of the war, the latest Spitfires were still excellent flying machines as well as competitive fighters, a tribute to the basic quality of the design.
Tony Williams: Military gun and ammunition website (http://www.quarry.nildram.co.uk) and discussion forum (http://forums.delphiforums.com/autogun/messages/)
-
109 had the worst ergonomics with regard to potential stick forces of any of the "major" fighters of WW2. Pilot had very little leverage at all....
-
Originally posted by agent 009
Side view would be good in 109. pilots head being close to the sides is good, as he only has to turn his head to see. In a Mustang he might have to lean over a bit to see. Don't know on Spit, looks like similiar sit, just turn your head.
Now the view forward & down is better in 109 than Spit cause wings are less wide on 109.
Rear view with bubble as mentioned above is better for rear view. For whatever reason this didn't seem to be much of a prob for the experten in 109. rear view that is.
Pilot view in the 109 was pretty bad, the thick canopy framing created numerous blind spots. The cramped nature of the cockpit actually made it much harder for the pilot to move his ahead to "see around" the obstructions....
-
Originally posted by Kurfürst
Well the 109 underwent numerous development during the war, the Spitfire still the same old worn 1935 airframe with a decade old design - in 1945.
It isn't really surprising that without any improvement to it, it was soon surprassed by the P-51, Bf 109, Fw 190 etc.
And that why people are screaming for a perk on the Spit XVI (at the same performance as a 1943 LF IX), whereas the 1944/45 109s/190s are (excl 152) free.
Not bad for a worn old airframe with a decade old design.
The ONLY true 1944 Spit is perked.
Would have loved to have seen the reaction to a XII or F.21.
-
Yep, that old Spit was a complete hunk of junk. What a waste of engineering time and production man hours. I've yet to talk to a Spitfire pilot who actually liked the plane. Most hated to fly it with a passion......I hate em too....oh wait....:)
(http://www.furballunderground.com/freehost/files/27/ManySpits.jpg)
-
According to Kurfy, "the Spit a bulged canopy that may cause some distortion and make picking up contacts at a distance difficult." So the bubble canopy can not be good either with all that curved persplex.
==================
Dan what is with that crazy painted nose on JZ*E?
-
Originally posted by MiloMorai
According to Kurfy, "the Spit a bulged canopy that may cause some distortion and make picking up contacts at a distance difficult." So the bubble canopy can not be good either with all that curved persplex.
==================
Dan what is with that crazy painted nose on JZ*E?
Ginger Lacy flew this Spit I while serving as an instructor at 57 OTU in 1941. It was his 'bounce' aircraft.
This particular Spit I still exists and is being restored back to Mark I configuration and there is some talk it will come out of the paint shops in these markings when it's done.
(http://www.furballunderground.com/freehost/files/27/ar213%20stripey%20nose.jpg)
-
Met one of Lacey's squadmates in 2000. He got shot down over London on the day Buckingham Palace was bombed.
Anyway, here's what Duke said:
"We also received a Messerchmitt 109F from Middle East Headquarters, but I never flew it for I found great difficulty in getting myself into the small cockpit"
Rall puts this clearer though.....said the 109 was BAD in the cockpit.
-
Yep, that old 109 was a complete hunk of junk. What a waste of engineering time and production man hours. I've yet to talk to a 109 pilot who actually could do anything with the plane.
Oh wait....
http://www.acepilots.com/german/ger_aces.html
;)
-C+
-
Well, it's perhaps miraculously biiger on the inside than the outside.
Talk about cockpits, - not the biggest but the best - FW 190!
-
Obviously Rall didn't appreciate the 109 in many concepts.
I find it equally strange that I don't recall the Finnish pilots ever complaining about the 109's cockpit dimensions even if they transferred to it from Brewster which was very roomy compared to any other a/c.
-C+
-
Originally posted by Waffle BAS
not using a line of sightsuch as a gunsight for reference, or a head posistion, because those can move.... I'm using the arse, cause that should be strapped in. :)
Basically you made the same mistake as Milo, placing the 109 pilot lower than he actually sit. Why not use the gunsight as reference, I guess probably the same reason Milo was also unwilling to put the pilot's head (most pilot's used this organ to scan the horizon, not their butt). The gunsight's line is fixed on every plane and defines where the pilot's head will be. Pilot seat otoh on all of these 3 planes are adjustable vertically, and we have no idea in what position they are depicted. Obviously, pilot's will adjust the seat to their size so that they can see through the gunsight comfortably. The pilot sits in the 109 with his legs extended, in an inclined position, he doesn't need as much room vertically, ut more horizontally (just compare how much more legroom he has in the 109 as opposed the Spit which's legroom was appearantly designed for Douglas Bader)
Therefore you should use the gunsight as reference, otherwise the drawings are pretty useless, not only because they give a false impression, but also they make the comparison of view rahter impossible if one canopy is much lower than the others.
BTW - if you look at the 109 overlays on the 51 and Spitfire -
you'll see that the gunsights of the 51 / spit do line up pretty close to where the gunsight is as posistioned in the 109. [/B]
Actually what I can see that if you'd try shift the Spit gunsight in the 109 cocpit, it's so much off that it would break out the top of the front panel.
-
Originally posted by Tony Williams
I am baffled why there should be such an argument over drawings when, as we have heard, a German and a British pilot sat in both planes, one after the other, and agreed that the Spitfire's cockpit was much roomier (I've seen that programme as well - in fact I think I've still got it on tape somewhere). Those comments are worth a thousand diagrams and measurements.
[/B]
Probably for the same reason why a honourable judge would give much more weight to objective evidence rather than conflicting stories of subjective witnesses.
But if you want 'authority', why not. Let's ask Bf 109 ace Franz Stiegler who flew all versions of the 109, and also the Spitfire, me262, me 110 etc.
"Franz Stigler liked the 109G as well and also enjoyed flying the K-4. The K-4, he said was very much like the G yet could leave all other fighters behind in climb. In control feel he said the K felt identical to the G. He described on many occasions where they would just bank away from the fighters and climb away from them (my guess this is probably after attacking them?). He also flew a Spitfire once, saying that he liked the aircraft.
How did the cockpit feel in the 109?
The cockpit was small, but one got used to it after a while. In the end it felt comfortable since you felt like part of the plane. The spitfire's cockpit did not feel that much roomier to him either.[/u] The 262 cockpit however was larger in comparison. It also had a long flight stick, giving the pilot lots of leverage in flight. "
http://www.bf109.com/stigler.html
Appearantly Franz Stiegler says the exact same thing what the drawings show, so we can pretty safely ignore claims about what is a celebrated, romanticized national idol.
I don't claim to be an expert on aircraft development, but even I know that the Spitfire went through a huge series of changes in its lifetime, including a new wing which was stronger and better-suited to cannon armament, a new fuselage with a bubble canopy, and so on. At the end of the war, the latest Spitfires were still excellent flying machines as well as competitive fighters, a tribute to the basic quality of the design.[/B]
I have an interesting report from RAE no less about the speed of serial production Spitifre models. They made some analysis on the power output and perfromance changes, and concluded that the abovementioned changes caused a speed loss of no less than 45mph. Fitting the two cannons in way that they projected from the leading edge costed 6.25mph, their bulges further 1.5mph, ejectors were responsible for 1.25, the internal B-P w/s cost 4 mph, triple fishtail ejectors and gun heating knocked down 9 mph, the rear view mirror 3.5mph, radio masts 1.5 mph etc. etc. and so on.
Obviously they never truely thinked about the developments, just bolted on another gun, another radiator, another engine regardless of how they ruin the airframe with it. The radiators are the best example, their frontal area area was about 4 times as big by the end of the war with equal perfomance loss. Maybe they should have just bother to look on the 109 or P-51 how it should be implemented. But they didn't care...
-
British point of view on the Spitifre 47 cocpit :
(http://img44.potato.com/loc265/th_5bd_spit47cocpit.JPG) (http://img44.potato.com/img.php?loc=loc265&image=5bd_spit47cocpit.JPG)
(http://img42.potato.com/loc199/th_715_spit47cocpit2.JPG) (http://img42.potato.com/img.php?loc=loc199&image=715_spit47cocpit2.JPG)
Full report : http://www.spitfireperformance.com/Seafire47.pdf
-
Spitfire 47, you mean Seafire 47- I guess?
By then the Spitfire family had progressed far beyond the original Mk I design.
The Seafire 47 had redesigned wings, a bubbletop canopy, contra rotating props to counter swing on takeoff.
Never seen use in WWII, but did see action in Korea, last Seafire 47/Spitfire 24 delivery was Mar 1948.
Seafire 47
(http://1000aircraftphotos.com/Contributions/Trempe/2010.jpg)
So your using that report for the above aircraft to comment on earlier Spit cockpits, hmmmmm.
-
Maybe High res will help...lol
Outline is the K4 cockpit in Blue / seat in red, gunsight glass pink
planes: Top to bottom - 109f1, K4, k4 reversed, 51b, 5d, spit2, spit 2 (with gunsight glass aligned)
(http://www.dangreve.com/cpits.jpg)
-
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.
-
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
-
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.....
-
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.
-
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
-
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)
-
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.
-
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'.
-
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+
-
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.
-
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 :) .
-
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. :D
-
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 -
(http://1000aircraftphotos.com/Contributions/Trempe/2010.jpg)
To justify your claim on a canopy like this -
(http://www.web-birds.com/8th/56/spitfire-ix-at-halesworth.jpg)
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
So if I understand you correctly, you now say that the bubbletop Spitfires were more cramped and had worser view than the 'classic' Spitfire cocpits?
In other words, you claim that Supermarine engineers were complete idiots, scr*wing up what was good.
Myself, I believe that Spiteful tail, totally redesigned wings and stuff had absolutely no effect on how cramped the cocpit felt.
-
just go to any museum , sit in 109 and in spit , compare that and you will see diference
-
Kurfurst,
Thank you for comparing me to Joseph Goebbels. That gives us all a pretty good indication of your thinking.
Here's an idea, go sit in the bloody cockpits and find out for yourself.
Why the heck do you think these threads are always you vs everybody?
What is the one consistant thing about these threads? You.
-
1.98ata still hurts it seems, all the Spitdweebs are so mad about it.
And what dream world are you in Kurfy?
There was only a 'penny pocket' of 109s autherized to use 1.98 but you never proved that it was use in kind of numbers in the last few weeks of the war.
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.
Yes you keep trying to emmulate Dr Goebbels.
Stigler said the Spitfire cockpit was bigger, if only slightly.
Should it be mentioned that the Galland armour had a heavy steel frame?
Can't wait for Kurfy's next thread saying the 109 had better vision to the rear than Allied bubble canopied a/c.
ramzey/Karnak, Kurfy would not do that as his 109 is uber world would disintegrate.
-
Originally posted by Pooface
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.
you sure about that?
-
Um, it is impossible for the cockpit to make it difficult for the pilot to move his head. His neck muscles & brain are the controlling factors of that.
& yes, forward vision was bad in 109. But not side vision.
-
Originally posted by agent 009
Um, it is impossible for the cockpit to make it difficult for the pilot to move his head. His neck muscles & brain are the controlling factors of that.
& yes, forward vision was bad in 109. But not side vision.
I know IL-2 has made people think that a pilot's shoulders were locked solid to the seat back and he could only rotate his head on his neck, but in reality there was much leaning and torso twisting as well.
And no, it won't have a huge effect, but it will have an effect.
Try this, lean back in a chair that tilts and try to look back over your shoulders. Then try it sitting up straight. It is much easier to twist your torso when sitting up.
So, what you have is higher G tolerance in the Bf109 at the expense of making it a little harder to look to the rear whereas the Spitfire's pilot (or most other aircraft's pilots) will have more problems with G forces (this is something I'd like to see modeled in AH) but a little bit easier time looking to the rear.
-
Rall told me that the sitting position was both good and bad. It was like sitting in a racecar, more backwards. It was better for G loads, but worse for the rest.
Anyway, since this thread has so many diagrams, how about a pixel measure. Anybody?
-
Originally posted by Kurfürst
So if I understand you correctly, you now say that the bubbletop Spitfires were more cramped and had worser view than the 'classic' Spitfire cocpits?
In other words, you claim that Supermarine engineers were complete idiots, scr*wing up what was good.
Myself, I believe that Spiteful tail, totally redesigned wings and stuff had absolutely no effect on how cramped the cocpit felt.
No I am saying that they were 'almost' two completely different aircraft by the time the late mk Spits and Seafires came along due to major design changes.
You were the one who used a late Seafire 47 report to show the pilot didn't care for much for the view. (I notice your still skipping over the fact you posted it as a Spitfire 47 report.).
The report even says quote para 11(10) -
"The Seafire 47 handles the same as previous Marks of Seafires; the cockpit however is MORE cramped".
So yes I am saying it was more cramped than previous Spit/Seafire mks.
Seafire III, XV, 45 all had std cockpits, Seafire 46 was the only other one to get bubbletops.
So can only guess he was referring to the 45 or earlier regarding them being less cramped.
Kinda blows a huge hole your logic - DON'T IT.
-
Well, yes, but I don't believe Pete best couldn't play drums good, he got the chicks, so John & Paul sacked him.
-
Originally posted by Kurfürst
I have an interesting report from RAE no less about the speed of serial production Spitifre models. They made some analysis on the power output and perfromance changes, and concluded that the abovementioned changes caused a speed loss of no less than 45mph. Fitting the two cannons in way that they projected from the leading edge costed 6.25mph, their bulges further 1.5mph, ejectors were responsible for 1.25, the internal B-P w/s cost 4 mph, triple fishtail ejectors and gun heating knocked down 9 mph, the rear view mirror 3.5mph, radio masts 1.5 mph etc. etc. and so on.
Obviously they never truely thinked about the developments, just bolted on another gun, another radiator, another engine regardless of how they ruin the airframe with it. The radiators are the best example, their frontal area area was about 4 times as big by the end of the war with equal perfomance loss. Maybe they should have just bother to look on the 109 or P-51 how it should be implemented. But they didn't care...
Yup, you never got any bulges added to the Bf 109 to allow for bigger equipment, did you?
Oh wait now - what were those ugly great bulges on the cowling of the Bf 109s from the G-6 onwards? Ah yes, to cover the breeches of the MG 131 guns...
And there was the small matter of accommodating the wing-mounted cannon when they were carried by the G-series. You're right, the 109 didn't have the barrels protruding - they had the entire gun plus the whole damn magazine hanging below the wing as well. Very aerodynamic, definitely a lesson on how to do it :lol
Tony Williams: Military gun and ammunition website (http://www.quarry.nildram.co.uk) and discussion forum (http://forums.delphiforums.com/autogun/messages/)
-
From the Finnish Bf 109G-2 test report by Captain Pekka Kokko listing "Flaws regarding the MT-aeroplane and its equipment:
1. The cockpit is cramped both in height and in width.
3. Wide canopy frames hinder visibility to a great degree.
4. There are no cockpit adjustable aileron and rudder trim tabs."
But, what the hell, what is an official report written at the time to remembrances of Franz Stigler (Franz who?) years after the fact? No value at all, according to Kurvie.
-
Tony, you forgot to mention:
- the RDF loop,
- the bigger oil cooler,
- the bigger coolant rads, E > F
- a bulge when the AS engines were fitted,
- taller rudder,
- gondolas,
- wing bulges for bigger wheels,
- little scoops added,
- long extended tail wheel. ;) ;)
Be sure, the 109 was as smooth as a new born's butt.
-
F coolers scoops were redesigned from E ones, which added 8 mph or so.
I do agree on other bumps. Redesigned, ( wide track ). landing gear would have enabled 13 mm guns to be put in wing roots on G-6 which would have eliminated hood bumps. & wing bulges for bigger tires would as well been eliminated on G-10.
Larger oil cooler on K-4 did not add any bumps though.
-
I cannot comment on the 109 or high back spits, but i have sat in a bubbletop XVI, i found it quite roomy and had an absolutely fantastic view, didnt see any of the distortion that kurfurst mentions. i am 6ft and didn't have any trouble at all.
-
6 ft too :D
Only "dived" into the cockpit, and it seemed big enough.
Wish I could sit in a 109. The aircraft is clearly smaller though.
BTW, AFAIK the frontal area of the Griffon was smaller than the merlin!
(at least that was promptly posted on another thread)
-
kurfurst, just do yourself a favor and stop talking:lol
-
"So, what you have is higher G tolerance in the Bf109 at the expense of making it a little harder to look to the rear whereas the Spitfire's pilot (or most other aircraft's pilots) will have more problems with G forces (this is something I'd like to see modeled in AH) but a little bit easier time looking to the rear."
I agree with you on this one Karnak.
The more upright sitting position (and preferably somewhat crouching)gives you ergonomically more freedom to move and turn your head to sides and thus to look behind your back. Of course it doesn't make looking back impossible in 109 but probably more straining in the long run.
I'd also like to point out that the upright position itself allows for better means of applying leverage to control column sideways but in Spitfire this feature was unfortunately negated by using the short span control column for aileron control. Pulling the stick was not a problem in Spitfire since the elevator forces were very low and the reclined position in 109 gave the pilot much needed better position to operate the heavy elevator of the 109.
-C+
-
You sit like in a racecar in a 109.
The Spitfire has stepped pedals for some compensation.
Some G suits were tried in late models, including the Mk VIII I belive.