# From the pilots view of things.....



## Lucky13 (Nov 29, 2008)

...which would you say had the best design, layout of the cockpit among fighters, torpedo, divebombers etc... of WWII? Thinking about machines with one, two or three crewmembers...8)


----------



## Glider (Nov 29, 2008)

I don't think that you can split things by type. From what I have read the Germans nearly always had an excellent reputation for their cockpits. There were exceptions such as the He111 and to a lesser degree the Me110, but overall the standard was very high.


----------



## BombTaxi (Nov 29, 2008)

German cockpit design for medium bombers had an awful effect on crew survivability though. The design philosophy of the time meant that the He111, Ju88 and Do17 families all had the crew crammed together in a largely glazed nose, allegedly to improve morale. In practice, this constrained the positioning of defensive armament, and led to horrendous crew casualties - a fighter or flak hit could take out the entire crew in one go.

EDIT: On this subject, the Bf109 also deserves a mention for poor cockpit design - it was cramped, visibility was restricted and the pilot sat on a fuel tank. This was only marginally worse that British fighters though - the Hurricane had (correct me if I'm wrong) either a coolant or fuel tank under the cowl, right in front of the windscreen, which could cause horrendous injuries to the pilot if hit.


----------



## Airframes (Nov 29, 2008)

You're right, Bomb Taxi. Both the Spit and Hurricane had a fuel tank directly in front of the front bulkhead.
As far as the Bf109 goes, yes, it was cramped etc., but, when it was designed, with a fully enclosed cockpit, providing comfort for the pilot, I guess that the future requierments of other comforts, and all-round visibility, probably weren't taken into account as much as they would be a few years later. One thing about the '109 though; I seem to recall that the positioning of the seat and the rudder pedals meant that the pilot was in a better physical position in which to absorb more 'g', as his feet were slightly higher than in 'normal' layouts, and the lower trunk sat lower. How much of a benefit this actually was, I don't know. Perhaps someone has some answers regarding this?
Terry.


----------



## thewritingwriter89 (Nov 29, 2008)

Another interesting bit about the 109 cockpit; the seat had only three adjustable positions and much of the issues usually complained about were because of the seating. I have read several pilot reports in which the author had banged his head lowering the canopy, simply becuase the 109 requires you to sit lower than most fighters. Airframes, this could be where you're theory about the 'g' absorbtion comes into play. It does kind of make sense that you would be better prepared for high g's in a more "slid down" position. 

Going back to the cockpit arrangement, another pilot report mentioned the flap and elevator trim being arranged so they could be turned together, but the pilot mentioned it would be hard to do in practice. Whether or not that was an issue, it's hard to say. 

Here's the link to the pilot report, which has some very descriptive information on the layout itself.

Flying the Bf 109: Two experts give their reports | Flight Journal | Find Articles at BNET


----------



## GrauGeist (Nov 29, 2008)

I've heard a number of accounts by American pilots who didn't like the P-47's cockpit because it was so large. One had remarked that sitting in the "office" of a Jug was like riding in the back-seat of his Dad's Oldsmobile when he was a kid. They were more acustomed to the smaller cockpits of thier aircraft that the P-47 was replacing.

To touch on BombTaxi's comments regarding fuel tank placement, the Me262 had two fuel tanks, one behind the cockpit and the other being situated between the weapon bay and the instrument bulkhead. To top that off, it wasn't self-sealing, but lined with leather.


----------



## kool kitty89 (Nov 30, 2008)

Didn't the Me 262 also have 2 reserve tanks?



> I've heard a number of accounts by American pilots who didn't like the P-47's cockpit because it was so large. One had remarked that sitting in the "office" of a Jug was like riding in the back-seat of his Dad's Oldsmobile when he was a kid. They were more acustomed to the smaller cockpits of thier aircraft that the P-47 was replacing.



I immagine this would have been particularly contrasted with the Eagle squadron pilots transferring from Spitfires.

I've also read reports by British pilots on the Curtiss Hawk and P-40 commenting on the roomier cockpit compared to the Spitfire or Hurricane. (which were slightly roomier than the Bf 109)
I also seem to remember Finnish pilots commting that their Brewsters had particularly spacious and well organized cockpits.


It should also be noted that visibility was significantly improved on the Bf 109 with the introduction of the "Galland Hood" with reduced reaming and increased rear glazing.


----------



## Soren (Nov 30, 2008)

The Bf-109's intrument layout is excellent IMO, but space is very scarce and you're kinda squeezed up in there. But the reclined seat position will help you to resist G-forces pretty significantly.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Nov 30, 2008)

Sorry Soren, but to say the -109's instrument panel was excellent would be like saying the air in the Alps smells better than the air in the Rockies. For the most part most WW2 fighters, especially those developed by Germany, the UK or the US all employed industry standard layouts for "most" of their aircraft, and I emphasize most because some of the more radical designs did displace some basic instruments.

Flight instruments (Artificial Horizon, turn and bank indicator, VSI were all centrally located. Engine instruments were either on the right or on the lower portion of the front panel. Throttle, mixture controls were on the left, electrical and environmental controls on the right - pretty standard.

The BF-109 cockpit as a whole sucked - PERIOD. I've been in one (also sat in a zero, P-51, P-38 and Bearcat) and I give credit for all the Luftwaffe aces (some who also stated how cramped the -109 cockpit was) who performed so well while in this sardine can. Out of the aircraft listed the -109's over all cockpit was the most uncomfortable and this has been well documented.

From left to right - Bf 109, Spitfire, P-51, Fw 190


----------



## Glider (Nov 30, 2008)

Of those four I do like the look of the 190's cockpit, very neat.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Nov 30, 2008)

Glider said:


> Of those four I do like the look of the 190's cockpit, very neat.



Agree


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Nov 30, 2008)

Out of those 4, I prefer the 190 as well. It seems like a very clean, modern and nice cockpit. I can not vouch for comfort however, because I have not had the oportunity to sit in a 190.


----------



## HoHun (Nov 30, 2008)

Hi Bombtaxi,

>led to horrendous crew casualties

Nonsense - randomly distributed hits don't kill more crewmen if they bunch together. Each shot that misses the nose fails to kill anyone in the crew is in the nose ... if you distribute the crew all over the plane, there are many more locations that will result in the death of crewmen if they're hit. Average casualty rate is identical in both cases - basic stochastics, really.

(Besides, the pilot in German bombers enjoyed pretty good protection thaks to an excellent contoured armour seat - I have not seen anything like that in Allied bombers.)

>On this subject, the Bf109 also deserves a mention for poor cockpit design - it was cramped, visibility was restricted and the pilot sat on a fuel tank. This was only marginally worse that British fighters though

In fact, it was much better than the British fighters since there were many RAF pilots whose faces were horribly burned when the front tank caught fire. I have never found any mention of a similar "standard burns" from the Me 109 fuel tank position. In fact, the Me 109 shared the fuel tank layout with the P-47, another type that does not have a history of burning hapless pilots in the way the Spitfire and Hurricane did.

With regard to the visibility restrictions - well, I'm not aware of much in the way of negative comments from men who actually flew the Messerschmitt in combat. I haven't ever seen a quantitative comparison of the viewing angles from the various types either from those who are badmouthing the type's visibility, so as far as I'm concerned, we're talking about rumours at best.

Regards,

Henning (HoHun)


----------



## HoHun (Nov 30, 2008)

Hi Writingwriter,

>Going back to the cockpit arrangement, another pilot report mentioned the flap and elevator trim being arranged so they could be turned together, but the pilot mentioned it would be hard to do in practice. 

This appears to have been well-liked by pilots who flew the type, even being positively commented on by some RAE report, if I remember correctly.

Another aspect of the flap arrangement of the Me 109 that was praised that it was a manually-actuated system that did not rely on hydraulic or pneumatic servo systems that could fail (or be shot up).

Regards,

Henning (HoHun)


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Nov 30, 2008)

HoHun said:


> With regard to the visibility restrictions - well, I'm not aware of much in the way of negative comments from men who actually flew the Messerschmitt in combat. I haven't ever seen a quantitative comparison of the viewing angles from the various types either from those who are badmouthing the type's visibility, so as far as I'm concerned, we're talking about rumours at best.



"The cockpits of all of these enemy aircraft were much more comfortable. You could not fly the Bf-109 for seven hours; the cockpit was too tight, too narrow"

Gunter Rall

Aviation History: Interview with World War II Luftwaffe Ace Günther Rall » HistoryNet

There are others who had the same comments about the 109's cockpit.


----------



## HoHun (Nov 30, 2008)

Hi Flyboyj,

>You could not fly the Bf-109 for seven hours; the cockpit was too tight, too narrow"

>>With regard to the *visibility* restrictions - well, I'm not aware of much in the way of negative comments from men who actually flew the Messerschmitt in combat.

Regards,

Henning (HoHun)


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Nov 30, 2008)

HoHun said:


> Hi Flyboyj,
> 
> >You could not fly the Bf-109 for seven hours; the cockpit was too tight, too narrow"
> 
> ...



Ask your self why was the "Galland Hood" developed?

Here's more...

Spitfire vs Me 109 in general:
"Military Channel's program "Spitfire vs Me 109" with Bob Doe, B of B RAF vet and Ekkehard Bob LW JG54 B of B vet comparing the aircraft:"

"Ekkehard Bob was in a Spitfire Vb cockpit . *His comment was on how roomy it was and how wonderful the visibilty was.* He then said he'd really like to fly the airplane."

- Bob Doe Ekkehard Bob. Source: Military Channel program. 

"I got about 150 hours and over 30 aerial combats on the Messerschmitt 109. It was a fine "pilot's airplane" and there was no big complaints about the technical side, as long as you operated it within envelope, inside the performance parameters. It is hard to find any negative things about the plane from pilot's perspective when taking the development of technology into account. *But the heavy and visibility limiting hood of the G-2 should have been changed into the G-6 "Galland hood" earlier."*

- Hemmo Leino, Finnish fighter ace. 11 victories. Source: Hannu Valtonen, "Me 109 ja Saksan sotatalous" (Messerschmitt Bf 109 and the German war economy), ISBN 951-95688-7-5. 

"I noticed that people always kept warning about the swing at takeoff. I never let it do so, maybe I resisted it automatically. *Visibility forwards was minimal during landing approach."*
- Kauko Risku, Finnish fighter pilot. Source: Hannu Valtonen, "Me 109 ja Saksan sotatalous" (Messerschmitt Bf 109 and the German war economy), ISBN 951-95688-7-5. 

"You know the 109 is way tight and you have the cannon between your legs and there isn't very much left and *visibility to the back is poor*. The cockpit, as such, was very narrow, VERY narrow. You have as I mentioned, the cannon between your two legs in rather like in a tunnel, you know? Later on they made a steel plate to protect the head, backwards. But they cut off the side through the back. You know? Because we had this steel plate, here."

- Major Gunther Rall. German fighter ace, NATO general, Commander of the German Air Force. 275 victories. Source: Lecture by general Rall. 

"*The cockpit was cramped and the visibility wasn't good*. This was evident when landing in bad conditions, especially with the G-2's cabin."

- Aulis Rosenlöf, Finnish fighter pilot. Source: Hannu Valtonen, "Me 109 ja Saksan sotatalous" (Messerschmitt Bf 109 and the German war economy), ISBN 951-95688-7-5.

I know a few other of our members quoted from this site.

virtualpilots.fi: 109myths

As stated - I got to sit in a -109 at Mojave Airport when the museum was still operating there. The aircraft was "White 14," which is now in Canada. When the canopy was closed I felt like I had a 24 gallon rectangular fish tank over my head.


----------



## GrauGeist (Nov 30, 2008)

Regarding the Bf109 cockpit:
From a British R.A.E. evaluation, Reports and Memoranda No. 2361:
Section 6.2 (iv)_ The cockpit is far too cramped for comfort._
Apendix I, Cockpit size. – _The cockpit is unquestionably too cramped for comfort. It is too narrow, the headroom is insufficient, and the seating position is tiring. When wearing a seat-type parachute a pilot of normal size finds that his head touches the hood roof._

Captain Vitali I. Popkov, Soviet Union (41 victories) in LaGG-3s and La-5FNs, flew a Bf109 and was "amazed that its pilots had been able to perform as well as they did".

Captain Eric Brown, Great Britain, remarked "The windscreen supports were slender and did not produce serious blind spots, but space was so confined that movement of the head was difficult for even a pilot of my limited stature." 

Also, a number of Allied pilots who had the opportunity to sit in a Bf109 cockpit claimed it was "so narrow that they could barely work the control column between their knees".

But to be fair on the cockpit issue:
Oblt. Franz Stigler, Luftwaffe (28 victories), test-flew a captured P-47 and P-51 said, "I didn't like the Thunderbolt. It was too big. The cockpit was immense and unfamiliar. After so many hours in the snug confines of the Bf109, everything felt out of reach and too far away from the pilot. Although the P-51 was a fine airplane to fly, it too was disconcerting. With all those levers, controls and switches in the cockpit, I'm surprised American pilots could find the time to fight."

As for myself, I have been in the cockpit of a Bf109E (owned by Gunther Pirner, Chino, Ca. - late 70's). I'm 6 foot 1 inches, and for me, it was uncomfortable!


----------



## BombTaxi (Nov 30, 2008)

Henning,

I do not have the book sources from which I drew my bomber comments to hand, so I will have to admit that I can offer no more than unsourced opinion at this time. However, I had gained the general impression from my reading that the deliberate policy of cramming all the crew together in the nose of the aircraft did have an adverse effect all round, particularly by limiting the placement of defensive armament - to Do17 and Ju88 families are classic examples of this. I had also gained the impression that a single pass aimed at the nose of such an aircraft could cause more injuries than in an equivalent type with a more normal crew distribution. This would seem to be logical - if all the crew are in the nose, and a fighter pilot aims for the nose of a flak shell explodes near the nose, you get more casualties because everyone is crammed together. Anyhow, I will try to dig up some sources, (I'm moving in a few weeks and a lot of stuff is packed up or otherwise not available), as I'm fairly sure I haven't just made this up


----------



## HoHun (Nov 30, 2008)

Hi Flyboyj,

>"Ekkehard Bob was in a Spitfire Vb cockpit . *His comment was on how roomy it was and how wonderful the visibilty was.* 

A positive comment on the Spitfire is not automatically a negative comment on the Me 109.

>*But the heavy and visibility limiting hood of the G-2 should have been changed into the G-6 "Galland hood" earlier."*

Obviously glass gives better visibility than steel, but that doesn't mean that the visibility with the original hood was below average.

>*Visibility forwards was minimal during landing approach."*

In common with many other types of the era. I've seen a P-51, an F7F, and F8F and a Spitfire fly curved approaches as standard procedure.

>*visibility to the back is poor*

"Poor" - fine, but compared to what? The obvious reference for a WW2 Luftwaffe pilot would be the Fw 190, which undoubtly was better - but it was better than the Hurricane and Spitfire as well.

>... the visibility wasn't good. This was evident when landing in bad conditions ...

Landing again, and even limited to "bad conditions".

None of these comments actually claim any impact of visibillity on the combat effectiveness of the Messerschmitt, or even any restriction with regard to operational flying - like some other fighters of the era, it required a landing technique designed to give visibility laterally off the nose.

I'm not saying that the visibility out of the Messerschmitt did not leave to be desired, or that the other taildraggers relying on curved approaches did not in fact have better visibility over their nose, but the universal damnation the Me 109 visibility usually receives in popular publications in my opinion is based on prejudice, not on factual analysis.

The USAAF in WW2 showed angular fields of view (unfortunately, only for the forward view) in a simple diagram, comparing P-47, P-38, P-40 and P-51. I'd be quite interested in seeing such a diagram for the Me 109, Hurricane and Spitfire, and armed with such data, we could begin to make a useful comparison of the fields of view of the different types - though of course lateral and rearward view would have to be taken into account, too.

(Next time I'll better ask for "qualified comments" - single-adjective comments like "poor" are of very limited value, and in fact the problem with a fair assessment of the Me 109 probably is that too much has been read into general comments like this one.)

Regards,

Henning (HoHun)


----------



## HoHun (Nov 30, 2008)

Hi Bombtaxi,

>I had also gained the impression that a single pass aimed at the nose of such an aircraft could cause more injuries than in an equivalent type with a more normal crew distribution. 

You might be aware of the Luftwaffe tactics of attacking four-engined bombers head-on. The bullets and shells often went right through the entire fuselage in these attacks. Distributing the crew didn't help.

>I'm fairly sure I haven't just made this up 

I never thought you had!  The problem is, there are many books around that actually print nonsense - writers are only human, too. Even today, we're dealing with 60 years of imperfect research ... hard to separate the chaff from the weed at times.

Regards,

Henning (HoHun)


----------



## pbfoot (Nov 30, 2008)

Whoever called the Spit cockpit roomy must have been a pygmy . Neither one of the forementioned aircraft was roomy with a very very slight edge to Spit


----------



## Glider (Nov 30, 2008)

Henning
You seem to argue against yourself in some places.

For instance 
_*visibility to the back is poor*

"Poor" - fine, but compared to what? The obvious reference for a WW2 Luftwaffe pilot would be the Fw 190, which undoubtly was better - but it was better than the Hurricane and Spitfire as well._

But when you are talking about the visibility compared to the Spit V.

[I*]"Ekkehard Bob was in a Spitfire Vb cockpit . His comment was on how roomy it was and how wonderful the visibilty was*. 

_A positive comment on the Spitfire is not automatically a negative comment on the Me 109_.[/I]

Surely if the natural reference of the WW2 German 109 pilot was the FW190 in the first case, the natural reference of the WW2 German 109 pilot in the second case, would be the 109. 
Therefore the postive comment on the Spitfire *is* a negative comment on the 109.


----------



## HoHun (Nov 30, 2008)

Hi Glider,

>You seem to argue against yourself in some places.

Well, in a way, I do. What I am doing is to point out that unqualified comments can only be translated into a conclusion by making implications.

In the Spitfire case, I point out that without an implication, there is no conclusion.

In the Focke-Wulf case, I make a different implication to demonstrate that merely a different (more probable) implication would immediately kill the original conclusion.

If you'd argue it would be more consistent not to imply any standard of reference, I'd say you have a point. This would make the original quote even less useful, though.

Regards,

Henning (HoHun)


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Nov 30, 2008)

HoHun said:


> None of these comments actually claim any impact of visibillity on the combat effectiveness of the Messerschmitt, or even any restriction with regard to operational flying - like some other fighters of the era, it required a landing technique designed to give visibility laterally off the nose.
> 
> I'm not saying that the visibility out of the Messerschmitt did not leave to be desired, or that the other taildraggers relying on curved approaches did not in fact have better visibility over their nose, but the universal damnation the Me 109 visibility usually receives in popular publications in my opinion is based on prejudice, not on factual analysis.
> 
> ...




Henning - bottom line - in comparison to other fighters of the day, the 109 had "poor" visibility. How ever you want to slice it, field of visibility, visibility around a specified axis, visibility based on canopy placement in the opened and closed position, diagrams showing the field of vision (something I doubt existed for the -109) the 109s visibility was poor, and that was said by the pilots who flew them and flew against them. Does the Galland Hood reveal any suspect that there might of been a visibility problem with earlier aircraft? Those Finnish pilots who flew them were probably the most unbiased operators you could turn to because of the situation in which they attained and operated the aircraft - during and after WW2. I could tell you by having sat in one, the visibility was "poor" and I don't know what else to say. You had no visibility to the rear, you had little peripheral vision (something needed during landing because the nose is obstructing the forward field of vision) and even straight forward the windscreen was like looking into a rectangular portable TV screen. The same day I sat in a P-38 and Zero and the topic at the forefront of the discussions of that day with the folks who were with me was the cramped tight cockpit and poor visibility of the -109. Maybe taken too much from a pilot's perspective rather than an engineering approach to prove the point.


----------



## HoHun (Nov 30, 2008)

Hi Flyboyj,

>How ever you want to slice it [...]

How about "facts"? We've had "opinion" for 60 years ... 

"Poor" with no qualifiers, no reference for comparison, no mention of possible operational impact is not even one hair short of complete nonsense.

>diagrams showing the field of vision (something I doubt existed for the -109)

If they don't exist, they can be prepared ... with the help of a static aircraft, for example.

Your approach of noting the visibility while sitting in the cockpit of the various types is basically correct, what we need is a quantitative output instead of a gut feeling - and then we can go ahead and compare the various types on a rational basis.

That this has not been attempted for 60 years while a library of books has been written on the Me 109 is disgraceful.

However, the lack of proper data doesn't mean that one can use a handful of weak quotes to make up for a lack of facts.

Regards,

Henning (HoHun)


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Nov 30, 2008)

HoHun said:


> Hi Flyboyj,
> 
> >How ever you want to slice it [...]
> 
> How about "facts"? We've had "opinion" for 60 years ...



Well when you have a dozen or so sources quoted plus my personal account I think that might sway those opinions to the fact column.



HoHun said:


> "Poor" with no qualifiers, no reference for comparison, no mention of possible operational impact is not even one hair short of complete nonsense.
> 
> >diagrams showing the field of vision (something I doubt existed for the -109)
> 
> If they don't exist, they can be prepared ... with the help of a static aircraft, for example.



OK - White 14 is in Canada, maybe Neil (Pbfoot) can have access to it?



HoHun said:


> Your approach of noting the visibility while sitting in the cockpit of the various types is basically correct, what we need is a quantitative output instead of a gut feeling - and then we can go ahead and compare the various types on a rational basis.


And again fair enough, but again I think the majority of the opinions will back up this claim


HoHun said:


> That this has not been attempted for 60 years while a library of books has been written on the Me 109 is disgraceful.


I could agree to a point


HoHun said:


> However, the lack of proper data doesn't mean that one can use a handful of weak quotes to make up for a lack of facts.


I'd hardly call the statements by Rall, Brown or some of those Finnish pilots weak quotes.


----------



## HoHun (Nov 30, 2008)

Hi Flyboyj,

>I'd hardly call the statements by Rall, Brown or some of those Finnish pilots weak quotes.

So just exactly which conclusions do you draw from Rall's specific quote?

"[...] and visibility to the back is poor."

Regards,

Henning (HoHun)


----------



## kool kitty89 (Nov 30, 2008)

On the Fw 190's configuration, I agree on the organized layout, but the high instrument pannel relative to the pilot position limited forewar visibility. (while the clear view canopy offered excellent vey to the sides and rear and moderate foreward peripheral vision -limited by the large diameter radial engine)

I think the main areas this would lead to problems would be in ground handling and deflection shooting. (particularly in tight turns)


----------



## pbfoot (Nov 30, 2008)

Having squeezed into both , the one thing that was apparent to me right off the bat is that the fighter pilots that flew either the 109 or the Spit had to be small folk. 5'8" or 1.7 m If I was to fly either in combat the visibility to either the side or rear sucked at least for me , my shoulders chafed at the edge of the cockpit and I was totally unable to turn my vision more then 110 degrees to either side . I still wonder what the point of the glass aft of the sliding canopy on the Spit was for because it sure wasn't for looking out of


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Nov 30, 2008)

HoHun said:


> So just exactly which conclusions do you draw from Rall's specific quote?


The visibility in the -109 was poor...

He also made other comments to the same effect in other interviews.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Nov 30, 2008)

kool kitty89 said:


> On the Fw 190's configuration, I agree on the organized layout, but the high instrument pannel relative to the pilot position limited forewar visibility. (while the clear view canopy offered excellent vey to the sides and rear and moderate foreward peripheral vision -limited by the large diameter radial engine)


I don't think this was no different from any other recip of the period.


kool kitty89 said:


> I think the main areas this would lead to problems would be in ground handling and deflection shooting. (particularly in tight turns)


The 190 was easily taxied on the ground and had an opposite reputation of the 109 as far as ground operations. As far as deflection shooting, I don't see how that comes into play here.


----------



## Lucky13 (Nov 30, 2008)

Then you'll have the same problem with the "birdcage" Mustang and Corsair, not to mention the -B and -C Thunderbolt with the steelframe right infront of you....THAT must have been a royal pain in the imperial @ss....
Who's bl**dy bright idea was that?


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Nov 30, 2008)

Lucky13 said:


> Then you'll have the same problem with the "birdcage" Mustang and Corsair, not to mention the Thunderbolt with the steelframe right infront of you....
> Who's bl**dy bright idea was that?


Not really lucky - although there was a lot of metal in fron of them there was still shoulder room. You could turn your head and torso around.


----------



## Lucky13 (Nov 30, 2008)

Sorry Joe, was thinking more about the vision thing.... I've heard that they were, well, roomy....


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Nov 30, 2008)

Lucky13 said:


> Sorry Joe, was thinking more about the vision thing.... I've heard that they were, well, roomy....



No worries, but even the three mentioned had a larger forward viewing area than the -109


----------



## Lucky13 (Nov 30, 2008)

Thinking that an enemy fighter could "hide" for quite some time and distance before you saw it.... Those frames must have had blocked a fare angle out of your visibilty....


----------



## pbfoot (Nov 30, 2008)

Lucky13 said:


> Thinking that an enemy fighter could "hide" for quite some time and distance before you saw it.... Those frames must have had blocked a fare angle out of your visibilty....


 my personal thought is if I'm flying combat in anything like a fighter those wings and rudders will be pretty active because your vision in all directions sucks , 

The 3 fighters I've sat in are all very constrictive to a point thats hard to describe 
I'm definately looking at a billet in Joes Caribean PBY sqn


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Nov 30, 2008)

pbfoot said:


> I'm definately looking at a billet in Joes Caribean PBY sqn


8)


----------



## Njaco (Nov 30, 2008)

The ONLY positive I've ever read or heard about the 109 was that the pilot sat in such a way as to reduce 'g' effects - something about restricting the blood loss because the pilot was more of a laying/sitting position.

Now we could talk about the Hs 129 cockpit.......


----------



## davparlr (Nov 30, 2008)

The aircraft getting the most "good" rating in the Fighter Conference Report was the P-51. The F6F got good reviews also. This evaluation consisted of mostly American fighters but included the Seafire and Zeke.


----------



## GrauGeist (Nov 30, 2008)

Njaco said:


> ...Now we could talk about the Hs 129 cockpit.......



Hs129, ok...why not? 

Looks a little cramped, but the visability seems decent enough...


----------



## Soren (Dec 1, 2008)

FLYBOYJ said:


> Sorry Soren, but to say the -109's instrument panel was excellent would be like saying the air in the Alps smells better than the air in the Rockies. For the most part most WW2 fighters, especially those developed by Germany, the UK or the US all employed industry standard layouts for "most" of their aircraft, and I emphasize most because some of the more radical designs did displace some basic instruments.
> 
> Flight instruments (Artificial Horizon, turn and bank indicator, VSI were all centrally located. Engine instruments were either on the right or on the lower portion of the front panel. Throttle, mixture controls were on the left, electrical and environmental controls on the right - pretty standard.
> 
> ...



Sorry Soren ??

Err, FLYBOYJ, when I say the Bf-109's cockpit layout is excellent IMO then it is because it IS excellent IMO. Why does that nessicate a "I'm sorry Soren" ??

There's nothing wrong with what I said FLYBOYJ, I've sat in a Bf-109 as-well, otherwise I wouldn't be able to comment on it. And like I said it's tight, but the cockpit layout is excellent (Yes it is) and the seating position is reclined, which helps against G's. Visibility to the front sides is better or the same as on other a/c IMO, while rear visibility isn't very good. However the Erla hood is MUCH better, and rear visibility is actually pretty good, but not the best at all.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Dec 1, 2008)

Soren said:


> Sorry Soren ??
> 
> Err, FLYBOYJ, when I say the Bf-109's cockpit layout is excellent IMO then it is because it IS excellent IMO. Why does that nessicate a "I'm sorry Soren" ??
> 
> There's nothing wrong with what I said FLYBOYJ, I've sat in a Bf-109 as-well, otherwise I wouldn't be able to comment on it. And like I said it's tight, but the cockpit layout is excellent (Yes it is) and the seating position is reclined, which helps against G's. Visibility to the front sides is better or the same as on other a/c IMO, while rear visibility isn't very good. However the Erla hood is MUCH better, and rear visibility is actually pretty good, but not the best at all.


You said *"INSTRUMENT PANEL."* I used the term "sorry" because I strongly disagree for the reasons listed - again your comment - 



Soren said:


> *The Bf-109's intrument layout is excellent IMO*, but space is very scarce and you're kinda squeezed up in there. But the reclined seat position will help you to resist G-forces pretty significantly.


----------



## davparlr (Dec 1, 2008)

I don't think a lot of thought went into cockpit instrument panel design until the late 50s. Most of the process was, "where can I stick this gage?" From what I could glean, Focke Wulf, probably Tank, was about 15-20 years ahead of other aircraft designers in being concerned about pilot work load. The Fw-190s cockpit looks very clean and I liked the layout, but I suspect it is a museum piece built to better-than-new. Did the Fw-190 have gunsight controls? Except for the Bf-109, which seems almost like a mockup or another museum piece, the others look like what one would really see in a cockpit, although the P-38 was not in an aircraft.

Here's a couple of stories told to me by old engineers when I started to work at Northrop (I'm old now so you can figure how far those guys went). 

One of the guys I worked with was responsible for electrical installation on the P-61 (long before me), but when he went out to the aircraft, he discovered that none of the bulkheads had holes to run the wires. His solution, he grabbed a drill and drilled away.

Another story told but I cannot verify the truth, was that there were two old-head manufacturing type that was responsible for assembling the aft section of the F-5 airframe to the front portion, and had done this for years. One day, one of the men got sick while the other one was on vacation. When the stand-ins tried to assemble the parts, they discovered that the parts didn't fit. The bolt holes were slightly off-set. The production line stopped and hair was pulled out all over manufacturing. The next day, the sick guy came to work. All the management gathered around him wanting to know what had happened. He simply stated "Oh, they have never fit. We just got a slightly larger drill and drilled out the hole on one part and they went together fine!"


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Dec 1, 2008)

davparlr said:


> Another story told but I cannot verify the truth, was that there were two old-head manufacturing type that was responsible for assembling the aft section of the F-5 airframe to the front portion, and had done this for years. One day, one of the men got sick while the other one was on vacation. When the stand-ins tried to assemble the parts, they discovered that the parts didn't fit. The bolt holes were slightly off-set. The production line stopped and hair was pulled out all over manufacturing. The next day, the sick guy came to work. All the management gathered around him wanting to know what had happened. He simply stated "Oh, they have never fit. We just got a slightly larger drill and drilled out the hole on one part and they went together fine!"


I seen that in the 80s when at Lockheed. The tooling for the P-3 was terrible and some of the tool engineers were terrible - they never wanted to believe that the tooling was bad. The nose radome installation, rudders, elevators and bombay doors all had problems and were addressed when the Aussies bought their P-3Cs.


----------



## KrazyKraut (Dec 1, 2008)

pbfoot said:


> Whoever called the Spit cockpit roomy must have been a pygmy . Neither one of the forementioned aircraft was roomy with a very very slight edge to Spit


The average height in industrialized countries was only ~1.725 metres then, people tend to forget that.


----------



## rochie (Dec 1, 2008)

was thinking, are the cockpits in il2 modeled accurately enough that if i posted screenshots of the view from various cockpits it might help ?
or do you guy's think they wont represent the real thing, i was thinking ahead view on ground, in the air, 90 degee's left, right and over each shoulder !!

just a thought


----------



## Kurfürst (Dec 1, 2008)

Hmmmm.....

Kurfürst - R.A.E. - Messerschmitt Me.109 Handling and Manoeuvrability Tests



> APPENDIX I
> 
> Pilots' Opinions on Cockpit Layout and View
> 
> ...



* Regarding headroom, please see attached image of canopy sizes on Bf 109E and the later production Spitfire with the bulged Malcolm hood; appearantly the 109E was not at all cramped in comparison, especially when we add that this type of bulged hood was only added to the Spitfire in around 1941/42, obviously a very real need. The Spitfires in 1940 had a hood without this bubble-like bulge, and its dimensions equal the inside lines depicting the Spit canopy - it had considerably less headroom in 1940 than in the 109E!






Also cross-section view of the fuselage, again the 109 was hardly particularly narrow. I would gladly make a comparison with any other aircraft, if accurate drawings can be supplied (with some scale on them)






** Airscrew control. The Brits received an early Emil from the French that landed in France in 1939; this one had manual prop pitch control, a handle in the centre of the instrument panel; others had a better place rocker switch on the throttle, actuated with the thumb. Already however in 1939 a fully automatic pitch control was fitted, which required no manual propeller pitch control from the pilot. IOW, the one the Brits had was not an up to date example.

*** Of the curved front panels on the Spitfire, AAEE noted in 1936: _'The present windscreen gives great distortion... if curved windscreen in this shape cannot be made ... to give no distorition ... it should be replaced by a flat sided type.'_

**** The reason why the Brits found the 109 hood jettison system a curious detail was that British fighters had no jettisoning at all at the time. Whereas on the 109, the pilot in trouble had to lean forward, operate two handles after which the canopy flew off and the escape could be made, in the Spitfire and Hurricane the pilot was required to manually slide back the canopy. If the rails were damaged this would prove impossible, but even in early evaluation reports of the Spitfire it was noted that canopy hood _'at speeds over 300 mph ASI was very difficult to open, although it was opened at 320 mph ASI'. Attention should be given to this question, as it is very important that the pilot should be able to get out of the aeroplane at the very highest speed without difficulty.'_. Later Martin Baker developed an emergency jettison handle, but the canopy still needed to be thrown off manually.


----------



## Kurfürst (Dec 1, 2008)

Also of interest are later British reports of the 109s cockpit. While these repeat that the cocpit is of small size and cramped, they also give very high points about the layout of the cocpit, the highly automated engine and flight management that enable the pilot to concentrate on combat, rather than flying:

Kurfrst - A.F.D.U. Tactical Trials - Me.109F aircraft




> 3. Pilots's Cocpit. The cocpit is cramped and is only comfortable for small
> pilots. They layout of the instruments and controls is excellent and is similiar
> to that of the Me.109E, with the following exceptions:-
> 
> ...





British testing report of Bf 109G-2/trop in North Africa:
Kurfrst - No. 209 Group : TEST OF ME.109G-2 (TROP).




> 7. The cockpit is simple. *A number of technical controls such as regulation of oxygen flow, adjustment of coolant radiator and oil radiator flaps and airscrew pitch control have been made automatic and need no attention from the pilot. The pilot is then able to give more attention to fighting tactics, teamwork, navigation and practical flying.*
> 
> Recommendations.
> 
> ...


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Dec 1, 2008)

Great information Kurfürst, I think it confirms the fact that the -109 cockpit was pretty cramped (and I'll say that in comparison with other WW2 aircraft I have sat in - P-38, Zero, and Bearcat). I revert back to the instrument panel - I think the writer of the report was being a bit kind with regards to "groupings" and such. In essence, the lay out is no different than many other fighters of the day.


----------



## Kurfürst (Dec 1, 2008)

The Frenchs conclusions of the very same Bf 109E-3 Wnr 1304 that is described in the first British report is also interesting:


----------



## Kurfürst (Dec 1, 2008)

FLYBOYJ said:


> Great information Kurfürst, I think it confirms the fact that the -109 cockpit was pretty cramped (and I'll say that in comparison with other WW2 aircraft I have sat in - P-38, Zero, and Bearcat).



I haven't seen these fighters from up close (I have seen the 109 - its shockingly _large_ after all you read about it the books  ) but it wouldn't suprise me a bit if the cocpits are more spacious, or at least _comfortable_ (I will get to that). All have been designed for long range flights, and two of them are radial engines, which mean the designers can (have to) work with a wider fuselage). I would love to over-impose cocpit cross sections for them though, too see the differences precisely.The 109/Spit canopy drawings were a big eye openers - endless bandwith was wasted _on differences that amount to a milimeter or two_...!

I also believe the 'cramped' comments about the 109 (and sometimes, the 190) don't really refer to the actual dimensions of the cocpit, after all scale drawings show these were not very different from other fighters, but the very different way the pilot seated in the 109/190 in a semi-reclined, with his legs well up front of him, and knees high - this is very much like in a Formula 1 car, and not particularly natural or comfortable indeed! In Allied planes the pilots took a much more natural, armchair-like seating position, which was surely much more comfortable.

Still, for military applications, the 'cramped' seating position with legs high up and slightly reclined makes a lot more sense.

BTW, I have seen the 109G, Spit V, Hurri, Yak 3, Il-2 and P-47 next to each other in Belgrade. My impression was, if an analogue would need to be given, that 109 and Yak were a skinny guy in a one-size-too-small bodybuilder T-shirt, the Spit was a skinny guy in a great coat (meaning here the wing sizes were very deceptive to the eye), the Hurri was an elderly 250 lbs chubby guy, the Il-2 looked like a 250 lbs steel worker. When you got to the P-47, you begun wondering why the heck they brought _a locomotive_ into an aircraft museum.  Eyesight is *very* deceptive in assessing the size of these aircraft.



> I revert back to the instrument panel - I think the writer of the report was being a bit kind with regards to "groupings" and such. In essence, the lay out is no different than many other fighters of the day.



The instrument groupling certainly wasn't, I agree. However the instrument panel was very practical, having only the instruments a _fighter pilot_ actually needs and can readily check without having to search amongst the others. Ie. compare the spartan instrumentation of the 109/190/51 to the P-47! 

Also from what I've read, seen from pilots, the layout of the buttons was neatly and logically arranged, generally receiving praise from the pilots. IIRC for example buttons retracting the landing gear were positioned right in front of the throttle - it was natural for the pilot to reach for them after taking off. For example on the Spit they were on the other side or something like that, pretty awkward.

Regarding the cocpit, it should be noted that the earliest 109s - the ones yet without the bulky armored head plate - by all acoounts offered very good view in all directions. The very large armored plate behind the head practically cut off everything to the rear quarter unless you waved the aircraft, but to its good points it a, was very thick, 10mm thickness, giving your head chance even HMG hits on it b, its large size also meant that you were protected from angled shots from the sides and even some 45 degree above/behind. Certainly something to appreciate if you are actually flying the thing...  

So, this plate essentially rendered the fighter very blind to the rear, but at least this was ractified from the end of 1942/early 1943 when the steel armored headplate was replaced by one which had a transparent armored glass section in the centre, the so called Galland Panzer (Galland had this kind fitted first in 1941 to his 109F, I believe it was a local field 'invention' by the armorers), which restored the view angles to the rear.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Dec 1, 2008)

Kurfürst, agree on all points. If we don't attain the info by the summer I hope to have a few opportunities to get up close and personal with a few WW2 fighters here in the western US. I doubt I'll run into a -109 but I'll have a tape measure and a camera to take some photos comparing different fighters.


----------



## ONE_HELLCAT (Dec 1, 2008)

pbfoot said:


> Whoever called the Spit cockpit roomy must have been a pygmy . Neither one of the forementioned aircraft was roomy with a very very slight edge to Spit



I wouldn't say the Spitfire is roomy, but I wouldn't call it cramped. I actually find it kinda comfortable. 

Granted, I've only sat in the pilot's seats of a T-6, Spitfire Mk XIV, and Zero, but I'm no pilot. I couldn't say if it was well laid out or not for pilots. Of those three, though. I've noticed the Zero is very roomy. I was told this was in part because of the lack of armor in it.

I've also heard the Hellcat had a comfortable, well laid out cockpit. I've never sat in one, though.


----------



## Soren (Dec 2, 2008)

Great information Kurfürst, I completely agree on all points.


----------



## thewritingwriter89 (Dec 2, 2008)

HoHun said:


> Hi Writingwriter,
> 
> >Going back to the cockpit arrangement, another pilot report mentioned the flap and elevator trim being arranged so they could be turned together, but the pilot mentioned it would be hard to do in practice.
> 
> ...




That's interesting. I downloaded some of those RAF flight reports posted by Micdrow. Now I just have to read them.


----------



## pbfoot (Dec 2, 2008)

Ok here the 109 numbers
22" or . 55.6cm from canopy rail to canopy rail inside
32" or 81.5cm from back of seat to instrument panel
21" or 53cm from front of seat to rudder pedals
15.5" or 39.7cm from top of seat to top inside of canopy
30" 0r 76cm from bottom of seat to " " "
sorry I didn't get the other ones today


----------



## HoHun (Dec 2, 2008)

Hi Flyboyj,

>>So just exactly which conclusions do you draw from Rall's specific quote?

>>"[...] and visibility to the back is poor."

>The visibility in the -109 was poor...

Oh, just look at the quote: 

"[...] and visibility *to the back* is poor."

You're making an unjustified generalization there that with regard to simple logic is a disqualifying mistake.

I called your quotes "weak" because they don't allow any meaningful conclusion, and even if Rall hadn't used the qualifier "to the back", your statement "the visibility was poor" would not even have been a conclusion at all, but just a repitition of the original statement. If the best you can do with a quote is to reach a non-conclusion, that is ample proof that the quote was weak.

To illustrate my point about being sceptical of the conclusions one can draw from the typical set of opinion quotes, consider the statement "visibility forwards was minimal during landing approach".

If you have followed the posts I made about my research into the comparative rate of landing accidents and operational damage rate of the Me 109 vs. Fw 190, you may be aware that all data that I found showed that there was almost no difference at all between the two types.

Obviously, if the forward visibility of the Me 109 was "minimal during landing approach", this was either not important for the operational performance, or it was not significantly worse of the Fw 190, which was fairly representative for radial-engined fighters of the time.

If "minimal visibility during landing approach" did not have any adverse effects on the operational performance, it obviously was a non-issue. Accordingly, it should be kept out of the lists of negatives about the Me 109.

With regard to visibility in combat, I do not doubt that the Me 109 had some restrictions fighters like the Fw 190 or the P-51 avoided. However, it's the question for the operational impact of these visibility characteristics that is decisive for the question: "Did the Me 109 suffer a significant disadvantage due to poor visibility in air combat?" To answer this question, it takes a lot more than a few of Rall's quotes.

I don't know how to reliably answer the question, but there might be ways to locate and combine data that could help us to gain new insights, such as with the "B-17 vs. B-24 survivability" question and the "Me 109 vs. Fw 190 landing accidents" question.

There are just too many old myths around that keep being reprinted - I think the enthusiasts here and on other fora are often doing a better job at separating chaff and weed than the authors of books on WW2 aircraft. Kurfürsts comparison drawing looks like a promising start to quantify things, and Pbfoot's measurements too! 

I'll be away for a couple of days, but I'd like to suggest that as a first step, we should try to come up with a forward visibility graph like the ones I'm attaching to this post. I fully expect the Me 109 to be show up somewhat worse than the larger US fighters here, but that's just a preliminary guess, so please don't quote me 

Regards,

Henning (HoHun)


----------



## HoHun (Dec 2, 2008)

Hi Writingwriter,

>That's interesting. I downloaded some of those RAF flight reports posted by Micdrow. Now I just have to read them.

Fortunately, Kurfürst just posted the relevant report - here the bit I was referring to:

"Trimming and Flap Controls. – These are particularly well placed on the pilot's left. The flap gear is very good, for it is easy to operate and, being manual, is not likely to go wrong. From the Service point of view this system should be noted, as it might easily save more serious accidents when the hydraulics are punctured. The juxtaposition of the tailplane-adjusting wheel and the flap-control wheel was also considered an excellent feature, as the wheels may be operated together with one hand and the change of trim due to flaps thereby automatically corrected."

Of course, if you find the time, it's always a good idea to read these old reports as they are as close to the original impression as we can get. If you read the popular books, they are usually doing little more than paraphrasing the old reports. And that only if you're lucky - if you're not, they are just paraphrasing other books that were paraphrasing the old report. After a couple of repetitions, nonsense WILL result 

(With regard to the 'trim due to flaps automatically corrected' bit: The Me 110 actually changed the tailplane incidence in unison with the flap movement to achieve just that. Normal elevator trim was achieved by trim tabs, only the compensation for flap deflection was achived by moving the tailplane.)

Regards,

Henning (HoHun)


----------



## thewritingwriter89 (Dec 2, 2008)

HoHun said:


> (With regard to the 'trim due to flaps automatically corrected' bit: The Me 110 actually changed the tailplane incidence in unison with the flap movement to achieve just that. Normal elevator trim was achieved by trim tabs, only the compensation for flap deflection was achived by moving the tailplane.



So in other words, the normal "nose down" response from lowering flaps is counteracted by an increase in "pitch up" elevator trim?


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Dec 2, 2008)

pbfoot said:


> Ok here the 109 numbers
> 22" or . 55.6cm from canopy rail to canopy rail inside
> 32" or 81.5cm from back of seat to instrument panel
> 21" or 53cm from front of seat to rudder pedals
> ...



Thanks Neil!


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Dec 2, 2008)

thewritingwriter89 said:


> So in other words, the normal "nose down" response from lowering flaps is counteracted by an increase in "pitch up" elevator trim?


Correct - like most other aircraft as well.


----------



## Lucky13 (Dec 6, 2008)

How did the gun sights compare to each other then?


----------



## Soundbreaker Welch? (Dec 7, 2008)

I'd like to sit in the back of a B-17 and go to sleep.....zzzzzz.....


naw, just kidding. I would have to be awake looking out for fighters.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Dec 7, 2008)

Lucky13 said:


> How did the gun sights compare to each other then?


As far as view or obstructing view?


----------



## Lucky13 (Dec 7, 2008)

View, obstruction of view, accuracy etc. etc....


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Dec 7, 2008)

Lucky13 said:


> View, obstruction of view, accuracy etc. etc....



As far as accuracy - I think we could start another thread on the best gun sights if we haven't already.

As far as obstruction - well I have a perspective. I had an opportunity to fly an L-29 with an active gun sight. It was pretty massive and seemed to take up the whole windshield. My "instructor" just told me to "look beyond it." After a while it seemed like it wasn't even there!

By all means it is easier to see without any sight in front of you. Here's a photo of what i was talking about.


----------



## kool kitty89 (Dec 8, 2008)

I think the German fighters had their sights offset (usually off to the right) to allow better foreward visibility.

I immagine the worst would probably be the telescopic sights on some aircraft in the early part of the war. (some USN/USMC aircraft, notably the F2A, TBD, and SBD as well as some Japanese aircraft, particularly in the IJA)
Some aircrsft still using iron sights might have been even worse.


----------



## Soren (Dec 8, 2008)

Take a look at the control stick/column, looks like the German WW2 fighter control column.


----------



## HoHun (Dec 8, 2008)

Hi Koolkitty,

>I think the German fighters had their sights offset (usually off to the right) to allow better foreward visibility.

The offset to the right reportedly was to optimize the sight for right-eye dominant pilots (which obviously were considered the norm).

To improve forward visiblity and to protect the pilot in the case of a crash, the gunsight in the Me 109 would be pivoted to the right, out of sight  and out of the danger zone if the pilot's head struck the panel in the case of a rapid deceleration.

Just a detail, but one I consider excellently designed ... reflector plates were infamous for the injuries they could cause.

Attached a sighting diagram to show the offset. It might also be useful for finding the exact position of the pilot's eye to prepare the visiblity diagram we've been talking about.

Regards,

Henning (HoHun)


----------



## Glider (Dec 8, 2008)

Interesting statement about the eye dominance but it was a big assumption. When coaching people to shoot, the first thing I test for is to check the eye dominance. You would be suprised how many right handed people have a left eye dominance.


----------



## HoHun (Dec 8, 2008)

Hi Glider,

>Interesting statement about the eye dominance but it was a big assumption. When coaching people to shoot, the first thing I test for is to check the eye dominance. You would be suprised how many right handed people have a left eye dominance.

Interesting - how does your check work?

(I guess in the 1930s, the Germans were not really into "going with the flow" ... probably they decided everyone should be right-eye dominant, or else! 

Regards,

Henning (HoHun)


----------



## Glider (Dec 9, 2008)

There are a number of tests but the simplest one to do yourself is as follows.

a) With both eyes open put an arm out in front of you 
b) Raise the thumb, line it up on a fixed point
c) Focus on the thumb, then on the fixed point in the distance 
d) Without moving the arm, close one eye
e) If the thumb is still lined up on the fixed point, then that is the dominant eye.
f) Check this by opening both eyes and closing the second one.

If its the weaker eye, the thumb will appear to move to the left or right depending on which eye is dominant.
If there is no dominance the thumb will move a short distance either way depending on the eye thats open.

When teaching archery I do the same test and if someone is left eye dominant and right handed we actually teach them to shoot left handed. It harder in the short term, but in the long term they will do better shooting left handed.


----------



## Lucky13 (Dec 13, 2008)

What about radio equipment? How did Luftwaffe, RAF, USAAF etc. compare there, as in range etc.?


----------



## evangilder (Dec 13, 2008)

Glider said:


> Interesting statement about the eye dominance but it was a big assumption. When coaching people to shoot, the first thing I test for is to check the eye dominance. You would be suprised how many right handed people have a left eye dominance.



That's me. Right handed, left eye dominant. But I have always shot (whether weapon or camera) with both eyes open.


----------



## Glider (Dec 13, 2008)

To a degree it depends on the strength of the dominance but normally I would suggest either:-

a) Use a cross beam on the sigth so you can shoot right handed but sight with the left eye or
b) Put a piece of light covered perspex attached to the sight which covers the forward view of the left eye. That way you get the benefit of having both eyes open, without the problem of left eye dominance.

B is far more common than A as using the cross beam there are a few problems such as keeping the sight level.
I am right eye dominance and right handed still use B. Top shots wear what looks like a pair of glasses but instead perspex on the sight have a small piece that hangs down from the frame just to distrupt the forward view of the left eye.

Some people use a patch over the left eye but the benefits of keeping both eyes open are significant

As mentioned before, if I were to teach you archery I would try to get you to shoot left handed.


----------



## drgondog (Dec 13, 2008)

Glider said:


> To a degree it depends on the strength of the dominance but normally I would suggest either:-
> 
> a) Use a cross beam on the sigth so you can shoot right handed but sight with the left eye or
> b) Put a piece of light covered perspex attached to the sight which covers the forward view of the left eye. That way you get the benefit of having both eyes open, without the problem of left eye dominance.
> ...



Interesting regarding different philosophies.

I teach more shotgun shooting than anything else - where the target is moving rapidly at various angles. If I run into a right hand/left eye dominance at a young age I also encourage - switching - rather than blurring or covering the 'off eye'.

For the older shooter set in their ways I usually make them aware of the issue and stress a low or dismounted gun approach to even competitive clay target (or live flyers) so that both eyes are always open and focused on acquiring and keeping the target as the gun moves into shoulder and barrel swings through the bird.

Usually there will be 'unexplainable' misses for the cross shooter, but at least aware of the potential for dominant eye to 'take over' at the last second..

I have always rejected the 'blurring' concept for those that are 'eye/hand' matched but I know some top shooters that do just that for Skeet. I suspect the constancy of same target at every location for skeet helps..

I have also noticed that many American style Skeet shooters that learned and adhered to sustained lead are TERRIBLE Flyer shooters in live bird competition - both for boxed and Columbaire style..

I shoot with both eyes for everything but pistol and rifle Qualification shooting where I prefer the sights to be in focus.

Opinions vary on this topic among experts.


----------



## drgondog (Dec 13, 2008)

Glider said:


> There are a number of tests but the simplest one to do yourself is as follows.
> 
> a) With both eyes open put an arm out in front of you
> b) Raise the thumb, line it up on a fixed point
> ...



I have only modified your method by making a circle of thumb and first finger to double check the 'thumb' only. I have found it to be a good crosscheck particularly for people with little dominance in either eye.


----------



## Glider (Dec 13, 2008)

This may be of interest. This is a high end shooting glasses frame. The circle holds the lens, the black patch distrupts the vision from the left eye. I have seen light patches rather than black and in some cases just a stick like a matchstick.

http://www.stewardsportsglasses.co.uk/images/championworld4640.jpg

Me I am low cost. I wear normal glasses with the lens adapted to be ideal towards the top left of the right lens and a light cream coloured perspex attached to the sight that covers the forward vision of the left eye.


----------



## drgondog (Dec 13, 2008)

Glider said:


> This may be of interest. This is a high end shooting glasses frame. The circle holds the lens, the black patch distrupts the vision from the left eye. I have seen light patches rather than black and in some cases just a stick like a matchstick.
> 
> http://www.stewardsportsglasses.co.uk/images/championworld4640.jpg
> 
> Me I am low cost. I wear normal glasses with the lens adapted to be ideal towards the top left of the right lens and a light cream coloured perspex attached to the sight that covers the forward vision of the left eye.



We have the same center of focus but for both right and left - my lenses are amber, violet and yellow depending not on light, but on background. 

I still have Decot Lenses and frames I was given by US Army team (I was not on the team but I was second alternate behind Satterwhite and (Brad Simmons?? can't remember for sure, but he shot a Bauer shotgun), the two Olympic selections for 76 skeet team, and Tom Poston US Army who was first alternate.

We shoot a lot of flyers in LA and Texas and NC where there are frequently oak or pine trees outside the ring in lower light conditions and the grey pigeons are more diffcult to see in that environment. Ditto for shooting skeet and bunker trap and Powder Pigeon at Dallas Gun Club before trees were cut down.


----------



## Glider (Dec 14, 2008)

Its interesting as you said with the different approaches to different types of shooting.
To cater for the different light conditions, the actual sight that I use has three variables built into it
a) A polariser filter
b) Coloured graduates
c) An adjustable IRIS.

Its an almost unlimited set of options but in a competition when you have limited time to set up, you can find it a curse. But if you get it right then its worth the effort.

PS It may sound odd but I have never fired a shotgun, its one of those things on my 'I want to do' list

Apologies to all for moving the discussion from what was intended, but I hope it has been of interest.


----------



## Lucky13 (Dec 14, 2008)

This will cost you a round at the bar!


----------



## Njaco (Dec 14, 2008)

Just found this pic. Pretty decent view of a Bf 109E cockpit...

Pictures from Tony Wood


----------



## 109ROAMING (Dec 14, 2008)

Good stuff Njaco!

surprised me how crisp/clear it is


----------



## Soren (Dec 14, 2008)

I am left eye dominant and right handed, but I do close my left eye when shooting. Always closing the left eye can however be tiresome in the end.


----------

