# Heating, ventilating, and comfort in WW2-era combat aircraft



## swampyankee (Sep 3, 2013)

As a topic related to http://www.ww2aircraft.net/forum/aviation/pilot-seating-fighters-38307.html, did air forces place any significance on the comfort of pilots and aircrew on ww2-era aircraft? A comfortable environment, especially in aircraft performing long missions (P-51, MPA, heavy bombers, etc) could have considerably improved crew efficiency. And was there any sort of "human-element range extension" equipment, like condom catheters?


----------



## fastmongrel (Sep 3, 2013)

In the Armstrong Whitley maritime patrol version there was so little space the radar operator had to sit on the chemical toilet to operate his set. In the Avro Lancaster the Radio compartment was where the heating hot air entered the fuselage, the radio man was often roasting hot whilst his crewmates were freezing. Not aircraft but the driver of a Vickers Archer self propelled gun had to get out of his seat sharpish as the gun breech at full recoil would have taken his head off. I reckon British designers thought the crew were a necassary evil that got in the way


----------



## waroff (Sep 3, 2013)

the french pilot or crew had a flying suit with internal electrical heating for the fligh at hight altitude or winter condition.

Seen in the spare list of french Curtiss Hawk 75, the funnel hangs on the left seat:


----------



## davebender (Sep 3, 2013)

These bombers had to be among the worst for crew comfort. Operating at 25,000+ feet unpressurized and unheated. I'm not surprised real world bombing accuracy was poor. Comfortable aircrew perform better.


----------



## pattle (Sep 3, 2013)

I remember reading Leonard Cheshire's book, (I think it was called simply Leonard Cheshire VC) Cheshire was a renowned RAF bomber pilot and target marker having flown many types including the Lancaster, Mosquito and even the Mustang. Anyway in his book Cheshire was an observer in one of the B29s that flew in the Nagasaki raid, witnessing the dropping of the atomic itself changed Cheshire's life but one of the points that Cheshire took great care to mention very clearly was how advanced the B29 was in comparison to the other World War Two planes he had flown in and how much more crew comfort there was in it. Cheshire was struck by this as he understood that it had relevance to the future of warfare. There are probably other aircraft that were in use before the B29 that I can not think of that gave similar comfort to crew but I think the B29 was a big step up from earlier aircraft and moved things on to a different dimension. The B29 showed that aircraft designers had realised that crew comfort was a big factor in the crews ability to carry out high tech missions and that not being distracted by discomfort helped them concentrate on the mission.


----------



## GregP (Sep 4, 2013)

The P-38 was terrible at first becuase the pipe where the heated air (from an exhaust muff) went to the cockpit was too long and got cold before it got to the cockpit. Pilots froze.

Later, they corrected this easily with an electric heater and the P-38 became a very comfortable aircraft. Early on, it was torture. 

The P-47 is comfortable and has a lot of cockpit room ...WITH a floor. The Hellcat is comfortable.

The P-51 is comfortable but tight. I can only class a P-39 cockpit as scary. There is a driveshaft running between your legs ... I'd want a drag racing scatter shield over it in my plane.

Here is Reno Race 232 starting up for a test flight today.






Here is one of two shots of the cockpit I have:






There is no place from which to get a good shot. It is way up off the ground, leans rather steeply back on the gear, and is usually slick ... so the footing is rather precarious. There is ONE retractible step in the side of the plane and you can use it to get into the cockpit, but not really to stand on for a good shot ... you need both hands really to hold on unless you're getting out. Then you hit the wing, sit down and slide off (intentionally or not) with an oil spot on your bottom.

I'd need a tall ladder to do any better, and it leaves for Reno tomorrow early.


----------



## LDSModeller (Sep 4, 2013)

RAF Sunderlands had most of the niceties of home (or close to it)

The Sunderland (all Mk's) had a WC/Head/toilet located Starboard lower deck
http://i40.photobucket.com/albums/e242/hkins/Sunderland/Sunderland Interior/Toiletcopy.jpg

The crew had a galley to prepare meals/tea/coffee (in flight) especially on the long patrols
http://i40.photobucket.com/albums/e242/hkins/Sunderland/Sunderland Interior/DSCF2755copy.jpg

A table to eat at (usually when on the water for weather watch etc)
http://i40.photobucket.com/albums/e242/hkins/Sunderland/Sunderland Interior/DSCF2753copy.jpg

A bed to sleep in (generally not in flight - unless you were wounded in a fight with the enemy)
http://i40.photobucket.com/albums/e...derland Interior/FILE0250copy_zps359aea76.jpg

A place to hang your hat/coat
http://i40.photobucket.com/albums/e242/hkins/Sunderland/Sunderland Interior/shot0019copy.jpg

Early Sunderlands (Mk I/II) had sockets for the crew to plug in to electrically heat their flying suits

Regards

Alan


----------



## Capt. Vick (Sep 4, 2013)

I have read that heat came into the P-51 cockpit down by one of the pilots feet and consequently that foot roasted and the other foot froze in the cold thin air over Europe. I'm sure it happened in other theaters also.


----------



## T Bolt (Sep 4, 2013)

The last of the P-47's the P-47N was designed for long range missions in the pacific and had features for pilot comfort not found in any other P-47s including an auto-pilot, Folding arm rests for the seat, and rudder pedals that folded forward so the pilot could stretch out his legs.

It's not much, but the later model B-17s and B-24s had inclosed waist gun positions to reduce the large number of frostbite cases among waist gunners.


----------



## OldSkeptic (Sep 7, 2013)

P-51s had an ashtray. In the Banff Strike wing book, one pilot tells how useful it was......


----------



## pattle (Sep 7, 2013)

Some of the later American fighters also came equipped with cup holders and a fold down dining table, and were armed with quarter pounders.


----------



## nuuumannn (Sep 7, 2013)

> P-51s had an ashtray.



Glad you mentioned this, I remember being told of this little nicety.


----------



## Capt. Vick (Sep 8, 2013)

Heard the Brits were impressed with the ash trays at the gunners stations in the B-29/Washingtons they "rented".


----------



## OldSkeptic (Sep 8, 2013)

Yes, just shows you how the Americans thought far more about pilot comfort than the Germans ... Galland had to have an ashtray specially fitted to his 109 ... heaven forbid.


----------



## fastmongrel (Sep 9, 2013)

Smoking in a plane full of fuel fumes whilst sitting on the fuel tank. Hmmm.


----------



## swampyankee (Sep 9, 2013)

fastmongrel said:


> Smoking in a plane full of fuel fumes whilst sitting on the fuel tank. Hmmm.



Don't forget the oxygen system. I'm sure there were fighter pilots who smoked; I suspect that the number who smoked when at 20,000 ft on oxygen was roughly nil.


----------



## stona (Sep 9, 2013)

fastmongrel said:


> Smoking in a plane full of fuel fumes whilst sitting on the fuel tank. Hmmm.



You can't smoke at high altitude with a mask on and at low altitude you can either open a ventilation panel (in the canopy or elsewhere) or slide the hood on most aircraft.

As a non smoker I'm amazed that they'd bother. Smoking and high octane fuels are a bad mix, but then I suppose the risk seemed minimal when compared to people shooting at you.

Cheers

Steve


----------



## tyrodtom (Sep 9, 2013)

People seem to think high octane fuel is more likely to explode than lower octane fuel, or will explode more violently. Not true.
The lead and other additives in gas to get to that high octane makes the gas burn, or explode in a more controlled manner.

When I was in the USAF we mixed most of our own napalm using 80 octane, mogas. Which they ran the trucks and tractors on. 
During the Tet Offensive of 1968 we made so much napalm we ran out of mogas, and had to mix it with 115/145 octane aviation fuel.

The pilots that dropped the napalm bombs mixed with the 115/145 was at our bomb dump office the next morning complaining about our dud napalm bombs. They still exploded, but had quite a bit less of a explosive burn. They didn't like them.


----------



## fastmongrel (Sep 9, 2013)

tyrodtom said:


> People seem to think high octane fuel is more likely to explode than lower octane fuel, or will explode more violently. Not true.
> The lead and other additives in gas to get to that high octane makes the gas burn, or explode in a more controlled manner.
> 
> When I was in the USAF we mixed most of our own napalm using 80 octane, mogas. Which they ran the trucks and tractors on.
> ...



Dying in a ball of flame or dying in an exploding ball of flame! which would you prefer


----------



## tyrodtom (Sep 9, 2013)

fastmongrel said:


> Dying in a ball of flame or dying in an exploding ball of flame! which would you prefer


 I'm just saying high octane gas is no more likely, or less, to go off than any other gas.


----------



## pattle (Sep 9, 2013)

I remember seeing a documentary once were a man was throwing matches into a bucket of incredibly powerful aviation fuel (I think it was from the SR71 but not sure) anyhow he was proving that as strong as the stuff was a naked flame wouldn't light it. Can anyone refresh my memory on this?


----------



## Shortround6 (Sep 9, 2013)

I think people are confusing several different things.

ALL aviation gasoline has just about the same number of BTUs per gallon or the same amount of stored energy per gallon. What changes with higher octane is the auto ignition temperature, the temperature at which the fuel vapor will ignite _in the absence _
of a spark or open flame. The temperature at which it will ignite _with_ a spark or open flame may vary too but that is not measured by octane rating. 

Jet fuel or kerosene may have more BTUs per gallon (more powerful?) but has a much higher auto ignition temperature. However, since the liquid (either gasoline or kerosene) _DOES NOT BURN_, only the vapors burn, we have another factor. Gasoline will form vapors at 40 degrees below zero, slowly, but it will. Kerosene will not form vapors until some point between 100-200 degrees F depending on grade. You can throw matches at a bucket of 70 degree kerosene all day long and get nothing. Spill a few gallons on a blacktop road in the middle of summer and you have a whole new story.


----------



## OldSkeptic (Sep 10, 2013)

swampyankee said:


> Don't forget the oxygen system. I'm sure there were fighter pilots who smoked; I suspect that the number who smoked when at 20,000 ft on oxygen was roughly nil.



True, remember a story about one RAF pilot, who made a habit of descending to smoke his pipe on the way back from missions over France ... until he was shot down by flak by being too low that was....

But the other comment was right, if you were on the pointy end (land sea or air) smoking was a very low risk factor in terms of mortality.

If you were one of the real high risk ones (like a U-boat crew) then smoke, drink, drug yourself all you want ... cause none of them are going to kill you first.


----------



## swampyankee (Sep 10, 2013)

Well, people will smoke even when there is a high probability of _immediate_ harm, like building ledges when smoking was banned in offices, or while on home oxygen. One of my doctors has taken care of patients with burns radiating from their nose and mouth due to smoking while on oxygen. Presumable combat pilots are smarter than that. Disregarding fire and flame from fumes, I believe that research from that time had found that smoking impaired human performance at altitude and human vision, especially night vision (completely ignoring the direct affects on night adaptation by the flare of a match), so I would think that it would be discouraged.


----------



## stona (Sep 10, 2013)

All grades of petroleum/gasoline have a flash point, that is the temperature at which vapours are produced capable of making an ignitable mixture in air, well below zero celsius. Unless your cockpit temperature is below about -20 degrees celsius, whatever the octane rating of your fuel, the potential for going up in a fire ball when you strike that match exists.

Kerosene, Diesel and jet fuels have flash points in the region of +40 to +60 degrees Celsius, depending on their composition. That's why at normal ambient temperatures you can chuck a lighted match into the stuff with no fire or explosion. The ignitable vapour/air mixture is not present.

Smoking attenuates the amount of oxygen that diffuses from the lung tissue and oxygenates the blood. High altitude attenuates the amount of oxygen available for transport to the blood. A 2003 study suggested that these two hypoxic conditions react exponentially to affect human performance. The study concluded that "the combined hypoxic effects of smoking and high altitude result in a statistically significant detriment in pilot effective performance."

Don't smoke and fly at high altitude, or climb Everest. In fact just don't smoke! 

Cheers

Steve


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Sep 10, 2013)

pattle said:


> I remember seeing a documentary once were a man was throwing matches into a bucket of incredibly powerful aviation fuel (I think it was from the SR71 but not sure) anyhow he was proving that as strong as the stuff was a naked flame wouldn't light it. Can anyone refresh my memory on this?



JP-7 - it has a high flash point and the SR-71 used triethylborane for ignition.


----------



## Wendovertom (Sep 10, 2013)

So in my very limited experience here is what I can add - hope it is worth something. 
The B-17 can be down right HOT sitting on the ramp in 80 degree weather. In the nose with the all the plexi it feels even warmer. Once you take off everything gets far more comfortable. Now mind you this is flying in the U.S. in the summer at about 5000' or so - certainly not high altitude. I can only imagine how cold it would get even in the mid-day sun. It is loud but not incredibly so and typically no one needs hearing protection unless you want to take a snooze then that helps so I am told.
The B-29 is a pretty nice ride compared to the B-17. The caveat here is again my expereience is in FIFI and she does not fly high altitude and is configured differently than a wartime B-29 would have been, In the nose it can get pretty warm on the ramp with all that plexiglass. But it seems to me with the insulation in the nose that the overall temp of the cockpit is a little cooler. In flight it again seemed to me that the temp was a little more stable. There seems to be more room to move around AND if you make your way to the back there is (or was) a nice bucket for your "hero's duty" - not so in the B-17!

The other plane that comes to mind is the Grumman TBM. In a TBM turret you are "Backwards into battle" to steal a line form Andy Doty. On the ramp it is hot and cramped. Once the engine is started it cools off and other than being a bit cramped quite nice. Although it took me a bit to get used to flying backwards. I can only imagine how loud the 0.50 would be when fired as it sits practically right next to you. Wind noise is nottoo bad and I would guess that since these planes were Navy torpedo bombers that a lot of high altitude flight was not done (someone enlighten me here please) but if so I would think that it got cold in a real hurry without a heated suit and gloves.

My .02

Tom P.


----------



## tyrodtom (Sep 10, 2013)

I just reread Clash of Eagles, about the 8th AFs bombing effort in WW2 .

I was surprised about how often crew members had incidents with their oxygen systems. Many more men would have died if not for constant intercom checks on all the crew. If someone didn't check in another crew member was sent to check them out. Often their oxygen system had become defective for some reason or another, and they were unconscious.
Also crew members would get frostbite when giving first aid to other crew, or doing other task that couldn't be performed with thick gloves on.


----------



## stona (Sep 10, 2013)

I know that the USAAF had problems with icing in the oxygen mask or its supply lines.
Cheers
Steve


----------

