Comparison of Spitfire/109 cocpit size

[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.

[ramzey]

just go to any museum , sit in 109 and in spit , compare that and you will see diference

[Karnak]

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.

[MiloMorai]

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.

[Furball]

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?

[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.

[Karnak]

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.

[Angus]

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?

[Kev367th]

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.

[agent 009]

Well, yes, but I don't believe Pete best couldn't play drums good, he got the chicks, so John & Paul sacked him.

[Tony Williams]

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  

Tony Williams: Military gun and ammunition website and discussion forum

[pasoleati]

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.

[MiloMorai]

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.

[agent 009]

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.

[Furball]

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.