Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => Aircraft and Vehicles => Topic started by: F4UDOA on May 31, 2002, 05:08:36 PM
-
Thought I would post this to show an actual 6 view from a F4U. It compares pretty well with the AH 6 view. This is more meant to compare to those other WW2 flight simms that won't let you see greater than a 45 degree angle out of the canopy.
-
I've never seen a picture of an F4U with the pilot's head so high. It doesn't look like he could close the canopy. He must have the seat raised to the highest setting; it could be adjusted through a nine inch range. Anyway, all AH planes have a generous 6 view, not just the F4U.
ra
-
...or he could be pushing himself up with his legs to get into frame...
-
...notice he isn't strapped in, and the shoulder strap seems to mount fairly low in relation to his shoulder...
-
Dont cheat F4UDOA. That looks like an F4U5 which had a raised pilot position and other changes. Look at his helmet and the groundcrews uniform, that looks from the 1950's and has 100% nothing to do with WW2 Corsairs.
-
Heya Grunherz,
I'm not cheating. But good eye for the -5. You probably guessed but the flat front windscreen gives it away.
But your wrong about the raised seat. They did put a more reclined seat ala the FW190 in the -4 but they raised the seat in the -1A forward. In the F4U-5 they actually sloped the nose down instead.
Here is a -1D pic. It's the same view.
(http://www.vought.com/photos/images/1077_24.jpg)
(http://www.vought.com/photos/images/0426_092.jpg)
-
Kratzer, on the mounting of the shoulder belts, if it's the usual way, is really low. There's an inertia reel on the back of the seat down around low back or butt area. It's steel cable runs up to a "Y" in the webbing. The Webbing continues up, diverging and going over both shoulders.
Look at the shoulder harness in the last photo. I think you'll get the idea.
Just about every fighter pilot I know tells me they flew with the seat as high as they could get it considering the canopy.
Think about it. If you're going out to "kill or be killed" would you run the seat down into a hole where you would see less of the outside or as high up as you could get so you could see more?
-
"Think about it. If you're going out to "kill or be killed" would you run the seat down into a hole where you would see less of the outside or as high up as you could get so you could see more?"
That probably depends on whether you think you're going to do the killing or not :)
-
Yep thats an f4u5, it has that cool looking wider windscreen . F4UDOA what is the caption for that photo ? I'm thinking it might even be in the sixties .
-
I'm trying to remember where I found it. I think it is Guy Bordelon, Korean war Ace.
-
Originally posted by Razzor
"Think about it. If you're going out to "kill or be killed" would you run the seat down into a hole where you would see less of the outside or as high up as you could get so you could see more?"
That probably depends on whether you think you're going to do the killing or not :)
If you ain't going out to do the killing it's almost certain you won't be doing any.
That attitude just makes you another star on someone's canopy rail.
;)
-
LOL Thx Toad, that will be my new sig. :)
-
It's more of how open cockpits provide natural advantages than how truly "lenient" the 6-view in F4U(or any other plane) was. I will post a pic proving this. Look caregully in the two cases you've provided F4UDOA when the cockpit is in the "would-be-closed" position(in yellow lines).
When the cockpit is open, the lofty space provides enough movement room for the pilot with loose straps and reared seat to deflect/lean his torso left and right, which would provide him the "6-view" you say. Effectively, his head movement will pass through the maximum space provided if the cockpit is closed.
Now, consider how it would be when the cockpit is closed. The pilot moves about 5 inches left or right and his temples will be pushing against the glass. If he attempts to twist his torso, lean oneside and look at 6 O'C, his nose will press against the glass.
You can also see how the pilot in the second pic is really straining forward, providing the optical illusion "he has a lot of room". He isn't sitting comfortably back. He must be either reaching forward and operating something, or checking out his gunsight. That sort of "leaned-forward" position comes out typically only when the pilot is in battle, flying level and aiming at something. If he sits back, his head would be restricted to the cockpit glass just as in the first picture. Even when he is leaning in such a manner during flight, it still would restrict his head and torso by about 10~12 inches room.
In my conclusion, this sort of setting with the seats reared up and pilot head position high is done with the premise that the cockpit will not be closed during the sortie. In other words, from the beginning the pilot probably requested his seat be that way to the ground crew, because he was gonna fly with the cockpit open.
Why was he gonna fly with the cockpit open?
Because, when he didn't his 6-view was gonna be restricted heavily.
Cased closed.
-
For a better explanation:
The cockpit glass also has a "leading edge" and a "trailing edge". Now, if we simplify the very first pic F4UDOA posted, we get something like the 'cockpit open' pic I drew(please excuse te crudity, not much of an artist here).
We can see when the cockpit is opened, the leading edge part of the glass is pushed all the way back, parallel with the position of the seat's headrest. There is no hinderance to the room, and the pilot is free to move his head beyond the boundaries.
Now, as Ra said, the cockpit looks almost impossible to close, yet it is possible. What allows this is that the cockpit glass has a curved 'dome'. However, look at the picture I have posted in my previous post. Look at the position of the glass when the cockpit would be shut. Cockpit glass is narrower near to the trailing edge part, and when the cockpit is closed, the room between the glass and the pilot's head is almost non-existent. Look what would happen if the pilot tries to 'check-6' in the picture below.
Clearly, the pilot's head position was never meant to be this high when the aircraft is supposed to be flying with "all the doors shut". Obviously the lenient 6-view is only provided with this sort of "tweak". It should be viewed as a sort of "field modification" rather than a 'natural ability'.
-
Kweassa,
I think you're missing something about both of those shots. First shot is a publicity shot so it would have been pointless to close the canopy. In the second shot, notice that the guy is taking off from a carrier. Pre-ejection seat days in the Navy, the fastest way to get out of a sinking aircraft was if the canopy was already open.
I'm sure many pilots cruised around in the South Pacific with their canopies open. It was pretty hot and humid. However in combat I'll bet they closed them up pretty quick.
Also I think you are perhaps missing the point of F4UDOA's post. He is saying that the 6 view for all the corsair varients in AH is accurate.
Here is a good link for you F4UDOA. http://www.vought.com/photos/data/planes5.htm
Notice the last pic! Oh when do we get JATO assist for corsairs!!!
edit:
I think that picture is actually a -4 and not a -5. -4's were also equiped with the flat panel windscreen, and the -5, -6 (AU-1) and -7 all had a blown canopy. The pilot and crew chief look to be in Korean war gear however -4's flew in Korea.
Here is a shot of a -5
(http://www.simhq.com/simhq3/sims/interviews/snodgrass/mug2.jpg)
Notice that little hump just aft of where the rear of the canopy seals against the combing. That does NOT appear on the -4.
I believe the -5 and all subsequent versions had a slightly raised canopy. This would allow the pilot to raise his seat a little more than say a -4 or earlier. I also believe the -5 and subs had a slightly more bubble or blown canopy that would have allowed them to move their head a little farther to the side.
-
" He is saying that the 6 view for all the corsair varients in AH is accurate. "
Having sat in the XF4U-4 and actually checked the view out I agree with him 100%. It has a vry goiod six view. No direct six view but with the canopy closed you CAN see most of the elevator, top half of the rudder at least and anything between.
This is the XF4U-4 that anyone (unless you're obese) can sit in on "Open cockpit" weekends in Connecticut:
(http://www.neam.org/images/corsair_lg.jpg)
Westy
-
Kweassa,
The F4U canopy was called a buldged caopy because it was buldged on the sides as well. This allowed you to turn your head side to side. In other words the width of the canopy was wider that the width of the fuselage.
Here is a F4U-1D canopy
-
Here is the Me109G-10
Galland hood
-
Spitfire IX buldged canopy
-
Me109G2
This is the worst of the pack. But none of these are any better than the F4U.
-
<< Now, as Ra said, the cockpit looks almost impossible to close, yet it is possible.>>
Kweassa,
I still don't think it would be possible to close the canopy with the pilot's head above the level of the headrest. He would have to keep is head tilted forward to clear the rear of the canopy. Those pictures all have the canopy open because the seat is raised to the landing/taxiing postion. I have never seen a picture of an F4U with the pilot's head that high and the canopy closed. I have no problem with the AH 6 view for the F4U, but I don't believe these pictures of the pilot's head sticking way up with the canopy open reflect the actual pilot's head position during combat.
ra
-
Hehe always amazing how folks will twist their logic in order to "prove" you couldn't see out of an F4U :D
The simple fact is that the seat WAS adjustable, and there IS "space" above the rear deck of the aircraft that would present NO obstruction for the pilot's eyes, canopy open OR closed.
The only question then is, "Could the pilot somehow contort himself into a position to actually SEE out of that space?" This is usually followed by all manner of obfuscation, talking about shoulder harnesses, head against glass, inability to view from "outside the canopy," blah, blah, blah. What utter hypocrisy.
The sim ALLOWS you to use the "Linda Blair" view, and it allows you to adjust your view angle to get slightly "outside" the canopy, and it does so in EVERY plane. Funny how the Corsair gets singled out as pretty much the ONLY plane that isn't supposed to be able to benefit from these little inaccuracies in modeling, despite the fact that the REAL plane was pretty clearly in the "Mustang class" with regards to its actual rearward visibility.
Take a good look at those Bf-109 pics up there, and then go try and create the "best" rear view you can in the sim in the 109 and the Corsair. If you can then say with a straight face that the Corsair and 109 have the "correct" rear view RELATIVE to each other, then you are full of crap.
(Hehe don't get your panties in a wad--just testing to see if my login still works in here, and saw my favorite topic. Might even test to see if my handle still works in the arenas one of these days...) ;)
-
Originally posted by jedi
Funny how the Corsair gets singled out as pretty much the ONLY plane that isn't supposed to be able to benefit from these little inaccuracies in modeling, despite the fact that the REAL plane was pretty clearly in the "Mustang class" with regards to its actual rearward visibility.
"pretty much the ONLY plane" is fairly subjective but could you provide links to at least 5 threads where Corsair gets singled out as having the ONLY "too generous" 6-view of the whole AH plane set of AH on this forum? ...And off course at the same time say that virtually no other plane's 6-view have been claimed as such when you do so yourself?
-
could you provide links to at least 5 threads where Corsair gets singled out as having the ONLY "too generous" 6-view of the whole AH plane set of AH on this forum?
Hehe, no, I couldn't, because that's not what I said. In fact, it's not even close to what I said. Your comment about "other planes" also has nothing to do with what I said, but nice try at putting words into my mouth ;)
You need to read a little more carefully, I think :D
-
First you say: "Corsair gets singled out as pretty much the ONLY plane that isn't supposed to be able to benefit from these little inaccuracies in modeling"
And then you "single out Bf109": "Take a good look at those Bf-109 pics up there, and then go try and create the "best" rear view you can in the sim in the 109 and the Corsair. If you can then say with a straight face that the Corsair and 109 have the "correct" rear view RELATIVE to each other, then you are full of crap."
So, obviously you are more than happy to single out Bf109 and at the same time you indicate F4U's six view should be left alone. :)
HTC develops this sim and improves things that they think need improving *at the moment*. There are couple of planes where you can setup your view "outside the 3d-model" (Bf110's rear gunner position, F6F and Ju-88 comes to mind). Í'm sure HTC adjusts these view limits at some point. Personally, I don't see this it as very urgent matter.
-
Yes, how interesting that giving the 109 its "accurate" MORE-obstructed view and giving the F4U it's "accurate" LESS-obstructed view isn't seen as "very urgent." :rolleyes:
It wasn't seen as "very urgent" in Warbirds either. At least not by the LW and Finn pilots. Wonder why that was... ;)
-
Hmm...I don't quite follow you here jedi.
...and giving the F4U it's "accurate" LESS-obstructed view isn't seen as "very urgent."
You must be the only one in this thread who thinks that F4U's 6-view in AH too obstructed?
Personally I couldn't care less if they make 109's 6-view more obstructed (along bunch of others...I think we can see too well out of almost every plane in AH). If they find a good way to get rid of "the linda blair" 6-view I'm all for it too.
When I think that 6-view-thing isn't the most urgent I'm automatically labeled biased...that's interesting. I want to have a WWII era sim that's as realistic as it can practically be on PC. I try to view these things as objectively as I can. If they find something *too good* in "my" plane then by all means change it...that takes me closer to real world.
I'm not one of those guys who strive to make their opponents plane worse and "my" own ride better just to sling mud and to get an advantage. Personally I find BS like that fairly childish.
-
Wmaker,
Go back to school and learn to read, man, and take a chill pill while your at it - no one said you were biased or any of that other watermelon you are talking about.
Man are you off the wall in your comments.
You need to re-read and read more carefully what is said.
Capiche?
-
Originally posted by jedi
Yes, how interesting that giving the 109 its "accurate" MORE-obstructed view and giving the F4U it's "accurate" LESS-obstructed view isn't seen as "very urgent." :rolleyes:
It wasn't seen as "very urgent" in Warbirds either. At least not by the LW and Finn pilots. Wonder why that was... ;)
Hehe Nexus...nothing even remotely implying to that direction here?? I think your personal attack was un called for. Bad day at work or something?
-
regarding the pictures in this thread, could someone point me to a resource for those?
It's great viewing those old pics!
-
To properly check your six in any plane that doesn't have ext view you have to roll, so I don't see what the big fuss is about .
-
DassMOrt,
I just did a search on F4U cockpit, FW190 cockpit, 109 spit etc.
Vought.com is a great source of pics and data for the F4U phanatic. They have not forgotten there roots like so many others.
-
my 4 head shots worth.. the pilots look there set up fairly high .