# Best - worst cockpits



## AL Schlageter (Oct 12, 2007)

I have seen lots of 'best' and 'worst' airplane threads but have not seen one on fighter cockpits.

There is no question that the bubble (ie. P-47D, P-51D, Spitfire XVI) and 360 degree view canopies (ie. Fw190, Yaks, A6M) were better than the canopies on the razorbacks (ie. P-47B, P-51B, Spitfire IX, Me109) for vision.

But, canopies are only one part of a cockpit. What also must be considered is instrument layout, ease of using the controls and reaching switches, the pilot's seating position and 'elbow' room and any others you can think of that should be considered.

How would you rank the cockpits of the the major fighter airplanes from best to worst?

ps. Seems to have gone in the wrong section. Could a Mod please move to the correct section. Thanks.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Oct 12, 2007)

I think you're OK in this section....

I think the thing to look at for fighter cockpits was visibility and comfort. For the most part designers placed instruments in places that were well thought out and were usually dictated by a customer or design specification. For example attitude instruments are usually in the center of the instrument panel - engine instruments are usually to the right or bottom of the panel and usually close to the fuel shut off valves. Power controls are usually on the left console, switches and circuit breakers are usually on the right console.


----------



## The Basket (Oct 12, 2007)

The Bf 109 has to be a contender for the worst.

Cramped, narrow, poor visibilty and with that overturned bathtub for a canopy. Never got a bubble either.

The Fw 190 was said to be one of the best. The P-47 cockpit was big!


----------



## ccheese (Oct 12, 2007)

The Basket said:


> The Bf 109 has to be a contender for the worst.
> Cramped, narrow, poor visibilty and with that overturned bathtub for a canopy. Never got a bubble either.




I havn't seen the inside of many Axis cockpits, but I have seen the inside
of a bf109. It's got to rank up there with the worst....

Charles


----------



## luftwaffemesserschmitt (Oct 12, 2007)

it has to be said the messerschmitt 262 had a very very good sight alround


----------



## comiso90 (Oct 12, 2007)

The P-38 cockpit was awfully cold at altitude!

,


----------



## drgondog (Oct 12, 2007)

I've been in cockpits of a lot of WWII and Korea vintage fighters and would say the same general rule of thumb applies.

American cockpits large and roomy, German/Brit and Russian - not. Having said that, the feel of a Spitfire cockpit is like having a custom tailored suit - no free space but comfortable nevertheless. I first sat in a MiG 15 when it came to Eglin AFB when I was 8 years old and THAT was a near perfect fit! Smaller than a Spit or 109 from memory..

I don't have any real negative comments about any of them except that the rear vision is less for the non bubble canopy (Duh) but the Malcolm hood version of the 51 had pretty good rear view. The Mig 15 and F-86 had the best vision of all. The P-38 seemed to have best view to rear and above, the worst to rear side and below... the booms were a real distrction but the cockpit visibility was great from the very first model onward. 

As to instrument layout, as Joe said, the fundamental layout is usually purchaser directed and very similar from one ship to another. It would seem only an issue when switching from one country to another. 

My father remarked that he had to 'label' several instruments on the 109 and 190D that he flew after the war because they were in different locations - but after the first couple of flights the labels weren't important..


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Oct 12, 2007)

drgondog said:


> My father remarked that he had to 'label' several instruments on the 109 and 190D that he flew after the war because they were in different locations - but after the first couple of flights the labels weren't important..


Like reading a book - after a while you know where the table of contents and index are located....


----------



## pbfoot (Oct 12, 2007)

What I've g;eaned over the years is the American cockpits were the best laid out as for instrumentation and the Brits were the worst . Many pilots stated the Brits built the aircraft and where the pilot sat and instrumentaion was an afterthought. In one case they swapped the PTT for the firing switch on the Vampire in mid production. 

Not to be outdone in Canada they put the compass behind the control column on the CF100 they rectified this by bending the control column


----------



## Glider (Oct 12, 2007)

Worst has to be the Swordfish. Open cockpit, Russian Convoy, minus god knows what windchill, freezing spray and the USA complained about the P38, poor dears.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Oct 12, 2007)

I think the P-38 got a bad rap because many of it's pilots had no other twin engine time and didn't understand how a twin engine cockpit should be configured.


----------



## syscom3 (Oct 12, 2007)

I think some pilots didnt like the control wheel setup either.

I've heard that the B29 instrument panel was OK..... limited room meant only the most important instruments were to be seen by the pilot, and the rest went to the co-pilot or flight engineer.


----------



## drgondog (Oct 12, 2007)

Glider said:


> Worst has to be the Swordfish. Open cockpit, Russian Convoy, minus god knows what windchill, freezing spray and the USA complained about the P38, poor dears.



Anything in the NA/Baltic in winter rain would be terrible.. but a P-38, unpressurized at 30,000 feet over Europe in winter would be no picnic at 40-60 below F either..


----------



## Soundbreaker Welch? (Oct 12, 2007)

What about Me 163? That was one tiny plane.


----------



## renrich (Oct 12, 2007)

According to the Joint Fighter Conference in 1944, for US fighters the best all around cockpit was the F6F5, worst was P38L, best engine controls was P51D, best gear and flap controls was F6F5, best cockpit canopy was P47D, most comfortable cockpit was P47D, best all around visibility was P51D.


----------



## pbfoot (Oct 12, 2007)

A cockpit is much more then a heater or defroster it's the placing of controls and instruments in logical locations , having your airspeed indicator on the opposite side of the cockpit from the turn and bank with the altimeter at the bottom .When you are in inclement weather or trying to recover from an odd attitude you want your instruments in one area so you can give them a quick glance and know what is occuring not scattered all over the control panel .


----------



## davparlr (Oct 12, 2007)

I liked my C-141 cockpit. All those wonderful buttons, gages and instruments! 

True airspeed indicator
Drift meter
Ground speed indicator
weather radar
2 UHFs
2 VHFs
2 HFs
2 VORs
2 Tacans
2 ADFs (4 heads)
Loran
Dead reckoning computor
Doppler computer
Navigator (this is drawback)

For flight planning, if weather looked bad, add 40k lbs fuel. That will take you half way across the US. Surely you can find somewhere to land.

Get tired? Get up, kick the copilot to make sure he is awake. Check the fuel panel to make sure there is plenty of fuel and all the switches are set right (it doesn't matter if the Flight Engineer is awake). Ask the Navigator if he has any idea where we are and if not (most likely), do we have a 50-50 chance of getting through the ADIZ without an interception by a guard F-106. If not, have him get you up 30 minutes before ADIZ so you can correct all your navigators errors. Glance at Horizontal Situation Indicator. Is there "W" somewhere around the lubber line? If so, all is well, Rack out in crew bunk.

And everybody says there is no challenge to flying a cargo plane!


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Oct 12, 2007)

renrich said:


> According to the Joint Fighter Conference in 1944, for US fighters the best all around cockpit was the F6F5, worst was P38L, best engine controls was P51D, best gear and flap controls was F6F5, best cockpit canopy was P47D, most comfortable cockpit was P47D, best all around visibility was P51D.



A very prejudiced report - P-51 best engine controls??? The P-38s were in the same place except there were 2!!! Again, single engine pilots who were never trained properly on twins....


----------



## pbfoot (Oct 12, 2007)

davparlr said:


> I liked my C-141 cockpit. All those wonderful buttons, gages and instruments!
> 
> True airspeed indicator
> Drift meter
> ...


you forgot the most important one autopilot


----------



## pbfoot (Oct 12, 2007)

The Basket said:


> The Bf 109 has to be a contender for the worst.
> 
> Cramped, narrow, poor visibilty and with that overturned bathtub for a canopy. Never got a bubble either.
> 
> The Fw 190 was said to be one of the best. The P-47 cockpit was big!


both the 109 and Spit are to small for anyone of size in my personal opinion after sitting in both . Made for pygmies


----------



## syscom3 (Oct 12, 2007)

davparlr said:


> nGet up, kick the copilot to make sure he is awake.


----------



## comiso90 (Oct 12, 2007)

pbfoot said:


> both the 109 and Spit are to small for anyone of size in my personal opinion after sitting in both . Made for pygmies



Plenty of leg room for Douglas Bader!


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Oct 13, 2007)

I have never sat in a Spitfire cockpit or a P-38 cockpit but I would probably have to say that the worst had to be the Spitfire and the Bf 109. Small and cramped and the vis was not that great even though later Spits rectified the vis problem.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Oct 13, 2007)

I've sat in "White 14" (Bf 109) a P-51, P-38, T-33 (flown in it from the rear) and F-86. The 109 was definitely a bet cramped and the visibility was poor. To me all the rest were about the same as far as comfort. In the P-38 the view from the bottom left or right rear was clearly obstructed by the booms - something mentioned all the time. Although I'm a P-38 fan, all the reports about the P-38's cockpit layout being poor is pure BS. Below are some instrument panel layouts - see for your self there isn't much differance. I do know on the P-38 pilot's complained that the mike switch on the yoke interfered with the drop tank switch.

Bottom line - compare the layout of the instruments, they are all very similar on where certain instruments are located.

From top to bottom - P-38, P-51, Fw 190 and Spitfire


----------



## HoHun (Oct 13, 2007)

Hi Flyboyj,

>From top to bottom

A forum-technical question: How do I get the pictures arranged vertically in the forum? On my screen, they are arranged horizontally, which makes it very difficulty to read the text in threads once a couple of pictures have been posted is a single post ...

I'd be greatly thankful for any hint you might have! 

Regards,

Henning (HoHun)


----------



## davparlr (Oct 13, 2007)

pbfoot said:


> you forgot the most important one autopilot



Oh yeah! Shouldn't forget that!


----------



## Glider (Oct 13, 2007)

I think that one of the worst cockpits must be the He111. In certain conditions the glased nose caused a hall of mirrors effect and the pilot couldn't see a thing. Such was the problem, the pilots seat could be raised and his head would appear out of the top of the cockpit with a window poping up in front of him to deflect the slipstream, enabling him to see for landing.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Oct 13, 2007)

HoHun said:


> Hi Flyboyj,
> 
> >From top to bottom
> 
> ...




When I did the download they just arranged that way - I think if they are above a certain size they automatically go horizontal. Maybe Eric has some info on this.


----------



## renrich (Oct 13, 2007)

The knock I heard on the F4U cockpit was that a short pilot had a difficult time because the chief test pilot on the Corsair was 6 ft 4 in. and Charles Lindberg said that the visibility forward in the early Corsair was no worse than that of the "Spirit of Saint Louis"


----------



## Marcel (Oct 14, 2007)

renrich said:


> and Charles Lindberg said that the visibility forward in the early Corsair was no worse than that of the "Spirit of Saint Louis"


----------



## Glider (Oct 14, 2007)

Another poor one would be the Me110. Some of the engine instruments were mounted on the engines. How on earth they managed in bad weather is a bit of a mystery to me.


----------



## The Basket (Oct 14, 2007)

The Spit was a bit better than the 109 because of the canopy. The Hurricane was quite roomy in comparison.

The sliding bulged hood was better than the 109s bath tub and could be opened in flight. The Spit having more headroom and a bit better visibility.

a bit off time but the F-86 cockpit looks perfect. Visibilty superb.


----------



## Glider (Oct 14, 2007)

The Basket said:


> The Spit was a bit better than the 109 because of the canopy. .


Good point and its worth remembering that some P51B/C were modified to a Spit type canopy.


----------



## Kurfürst (Oct 15, 2007)

The Basket said:


> The Spit was a bit better than the 109 because of the canopy. The Hurricane was quite roomy in comparison.
> 
> The sliding bulged hood was better than the 109s bath tub and could be opened in flight. The Spit having more headroom and a bit better visibility.
> 
> a bit off time but the F-86 cockpit looks perfect. Visibilty superb.



This is the Malcolm hood of the Spit IX, plotted against the 109Es canopy. 
The 109`s canopy dimensions were practically the same through the series, and you can follow the Spit`s canopy size in all three steps it had :

a, The smallest dimensioned one being the original canopy first used
b, The slight bulge on the top showing the slight bulge that was added to the top 
c, The final Malcolm canopy`s side bulges that were added later, late 1941 or ealry 1942 IIRC?


----------



## The Basket (Oct 15, 2007)

I remember watching a documentry about the Spit and it had Sqn Ldr Paul Day who flew Spitfires in the BBMF a few years ago.

He said that the Spitfire had its foibiles such as poor visibility and having to change hands on take-off to retract undercarriage.

He happened to sit in the famous Black 6...which is a Bf 109G-2 which was flying at the time. He considered the instruments to be good and logical but was scathing about the cockpit. He thought it far too small and the hood restrictive. His view was not exactly positive. He went on about the breech of the cannon been between his legs and the fact that the stick was fouled by his legs so he couldn't move the stick freely. He considered it 100% worse than the Spit.

The original Spit hood was changed due to more headroom for taller pilots rather than extra visibility although it did that too.


----------



## Soren (Oct 15, 2007)

P-47, Me-262, P-51, FW-190, Spitfire Tempest come to my mind as the most comfortable when talking about cockpits. The Bf-109 cockpit is cramped to some degree, but vision in the later versions is actually great and the small cockpit in no way prevents you from achieving the job swiftly and effectively.


----------



## The Basket (Oct 15, 2007)

The Erla hood or Galland hood is no substitute for a bubble.


----------



## Gibbage (Oct 16, 2007)

The P-38 must be one of the worst cockpit layouts of WWII. Im a HUGE P-38 fan, but that was one of its low spots. It had a great forward view, but to the sides and back was hampered by the engine, wings and boom. Also, its one of the few Army aircraft that never addopted a 1 peace bubble frame, like the P-51 or P-47. Then there was the layout. The yoke frame blocked a lot of vital fuse switches needed during combat. Also, the landing gear lever was poorly placed, and many other poor design aspects that made flying it more complex then other twins, let alone single engine fighters. Also, there was that cold cockpit problem not solved till the L series. Before that, the only warm air into the cockpit was drawn from the surface of the turbo-super, passed though the wing, and spilled into the cockpit for window defrosting, VS having a big V-12 or P&W in front of you keeping you warm. 

It could of done with a re-design big time. 

Here are comments from a P-38 in reguards to its complexities. 

"As a typical case to demonstrate my point, let us assume that we have a pilot fresh out of flying school with about a total of twenty-five hours in a P-38, starting out on a combat mission. He is on a deep ramrod, penetration and target support to maximum endurance. He is cruising along with his power set at maximum economy. He is pulling 31" Hg and 2100 RPM. He is auto lean and running on external tanks. His gun heater is off to relieve the load on his generator, which frequently gives out (under sustained heavy load). His sight is off to save burning out the bulb. His combat switch may or may not be on. Flying along in this condition, he suddenly gets "bounced", what to do flashes through his mind. He must turn, he must increase power and get rid of those external tanks and get on his main. So, he reaches down and turns two stiff, difficult gas switches {valves} to main - turns on his drop tank switches, presses his release button, puts the mixture to auto rich (two separate and clumsy operations), increases his RPM, increases his manifold pressure, turns on his gun heater switch (which he must feel for and cannot possibly see), turns on his combat switch and he is ready to fight. At this point, he has probably been shot down or he has done one of several things wrong. Most common error is to push the throttles wide open before increasing RPM. This causes detonation and subsequent engine failure. Or, he forgets to switch back to auto rich, and gets excessive cylinder head temperature with subsequent engine failure.

In my limited experience with a P-38 group, we have lost as least four (4) pilots, who when bounced, took no immediate evasive action. The logical assumption is that they were so busy in the cockpit, trying to get organized that they were shot down before they could get going."

A lot of those switches and valves are very hard to get to. Fuel switch is between the seat and the left cockpit wall, and below an electrical box. You cant even see them in any cockpit photo's! It was a very poor pit, and just think of how much better the aircraft it would be if it had a well laid out cockpit.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Oct 16, 2007)

Gibbage said:


> The P-38 must be one of the worst cockpit layouts of WWII. Im a HUGE P-38 fan, but that was one of its low spots. It had a great forward view, but to the sides and back was hampered by the engine, wings and boom. Also, its one of the few Army aircraft that never addopted a 1 peace bubble frame, like the P-51 or P-47. Then there was the layout. The yoke frame blocked a lot of vital fuse switches needed during combat. Also, the landing gear lever was poorly placed, and many other poor design aspects that made flying it more complex then other twins, let alone single engine fighters. Also, there was that cold cockpit problem not solved till the L series. Before that, the only warm air into the cockpit was drawn from the surface of the turbo-super, passed though the wing, and spilled into the cockpit for window defrosting, VS having a big V-12 or P&W in front of you keeping you warm.
> 
> It could of done with a re-design big time.


The P-38 cockpit was probably set up at the direction of the AAF who never had to deal with a tri-cycle configured twin engine fighter. I've sat in a P-38 and flown twin engine aircraft - the only problem with the P-38s landing gear lever is id doesn't have a "wheel" on it so you could grab it without lighting and identify it as a landing gear lever - something thought of years later...



Gibbage said:


> Here are comments from a P-38 in reguards to its complexities.
> 
> "As a typical case to demonstrate my point, let us assume that we have a pilot fresh out of flying school with about a total of twenty-five hours in a P-38, starting out on a combat mission. He is on a deep ramrod, penetration and target support to maximum endurance. He is cruising along with his power set at maximum economy. He is pulling 31" Hg and 2100 RPM. He is auto lean and running on external tanks. His gun heater is off to relieve the load on his generator, which frequently gives out (under sustained heavy load). His sight is off to save burning out the bulb. His combat switch may or may not be on. Flying along in this condition, he suddenly gets "bounced", what to do flashes through his mind. He must turn, he must increase power and get rid of those external tanks and get on his main. So, he reaches down and turns two stiff, difficult gas switches {valves} to main - turns on his drop tank switches, presses his release button, puts the mixture to auto rich (two separate and clumsy operations), increases his RPM, increases his manifold pressure, turns on his gun heater switch (which he must feel for and cannot possibly see), turns on his combat switch and he is ready to fight. At this point, he has probably been shot down or he has done one of several things wrong. Most common error is to push the throttles wide open before increasing RPM. This causes detonation and subsequent engine failure. Or, he forgets to switch back to auto rich, and gets excessive cylinder head temperature with subsequent engine failure.
> 
> ...


Confessions of a low time multi-engine pilot....


----------



## CraigO (Oct 16, 2007)

Wat about the Horten 229? must have been really offputting to be sitting between two jumo engines where they were so close and unprotected you could touch them from the pilots seat.


----------



## Gibbage (Oct 17, 2007)

CraigO said:


> Wat about the Horten 229? must have been really offputting to be sitting between two jumo engines where they were so close and unprotected you could touch them from the pilots seat.



Considering that the only Gotha built was a V1 and V2 prototype, and V3 was not finished, I would not asume that they would of left you with the engines exposed next too your seat. It would be easy to rivit some aluminum sheet to the pipe framework for production models.


----------



## Gibbage (Oct 17, 2007)

FLYBOYJ said:


> Confessions of a low time multi-engine pilot....



That pilot has over 100 hours of combat in a P-38 when he wrote that. It was his interpritations of what could happen to new pilots. Here is the full text. 

*20th Fighter Group Headquarters
APO 637 U.S. Army
(E-2)

3 June 1944

Subject: P-38 Airplane in Combat.

To: Commanding General, VIII Fighter Command, APO 637, U.S. Army.

1. The following observations are being put in writing by the undersigned at the request of the Commanding General, VII FC. They are intended purely as constructive criticism and are intended in any way to "low rate" our present equipment.

2. After flying the P-38 for a little over one hundred hours on combat missions it is my belief that the airplane, as it stands now, is too complicated for the 'average' pilot. I want to put strong emphasis on the word 'average, taking full consideration just how little combat training our pilots have before going on as operational status.

3. As a typical case to demonstrate my point, let us assume that we have a pilot fresh out of flying school with about a total of twenty-five hours in a P-38, starting out on a combat mission. He is on a deep ramrod, penetration and target support to maximum endurance. He is cruising along with his power set at maximum economy. He is pulling 31" Hg and 2100 RPM. He is auto lean and running on external tanks. His gun heater is off to relieve the load on his generator, which frequently gives out (under sustained heavy load). His sight is off to save burning out the bulb. His combat switch may or may not be on. Flying along in this condition, he suddenly gets "bounced", what to do flashes through his mind. He must turn, he must increase power and get rid of those external tanks and get on his main. So, he reaches down and turns two stiff, difficult gas switches {valves} to main - turns on his drop tank switches, presses his release button, puts the mixture to auto rich (two separate and clumsy operations), increases his RPM, increases his manifold pressure, turns on his gun heater switch (which he must feel for and cannot possibly see), turns on his combat switch and he is ready to fight. At this point, he has probably been shot down or he has done one of several things wrong. Most common error is to push the throttles wide open before increasing RPM. This causes detonation and subsequent engine failure. Or, he forgets to switch back to auto rich, and gets excessive cylinder head temperature with subsequent engine failure.

4. In my limited experience with a P-38 group, we have lost as least four (4) pilots, who when bounced, took no immediate evasive action. The logical assumption is that they were so busy in the cockpit, trying to get organized that they were shot down before they could get going.

5. The question that arises is, what are you going to do about it? It is standard procedure for the group leader to call, five minutes before R/V and tell all the pilots to "prepare for trouble". This is the signal for everyone to get into auto rich, turn drop tank switches on, gun heaters on, combat and sight switches on and to increase RPM and manifold pressure to maximum cruise. This procedure, however, does not help the pilot who is bounced on the way in and who is trying to conserve his gasoline and equipment for the escort job ahead.

6. What is the answer to these difficulties? During the past several weeks we have been visited at this station time and time again by Lockheed representatives, Allison representatives and high ranking Army personnel connected with these two companies. They all ask about our troubles and then proceed to tell us about the marvelous mechanisms that they have devised to overcome these troubles that the Air Force has turned down as "unnecessary". Chief among these is a unit power control, incorporating an automatic manifold pressure regulator, which will control power, RPM and mixture by use of a single lever. It is obvious that there is a crying need for a device like that in combat.

7. It is easy to understand why test pilots, who have never been in combat, cannot readily appreciate what each split second means when a "bounce" occurs. Every last motion when you get bounced is just another nail in your coffin. Any device which would eliminate any of the enumerated above, are obviously very necessary to make the P-38 a really effective combat airplane.

8. It is also felt that that much could done to simplify the gas switching system in this airplane. The switches {valve selector handles} are all in awkward positions and extremely hard to turn. The toggle switches for outboard tanks are almost impossible to operate with gloves on.

9. My personal feeling about this airplane is that it is a fine piece of equipment, and if properly handled, takes a back seat for nothing that the enemy can produce. But it does need simplifying to bring it within the capabilities of the 'average' pilot. I believe that pilots like Colonel Ben Kelsey and Colonel Cass Huff are among the finest pilots in the world today. But I also believe that it is difficult for men like them to place their thinking and ability on the level of a youngster with a bare 25 hours in the airplane, going into his first combat. That is the sort of thinking that will have to be done, in my opinion, to make the P-38 a first-class all around fighting airplane.

HAROLD J. RAU
Colonel, Air Corps,
Commanding.

*


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Oct 17, 2007)

I've read that report several times -it reinforces the fact that there was no adequate twin engine aircraft training at the beginning of the war and because of that there was a lot of prejudice aganst the P-38, but then again many 5th AF pilots squashed many of the issues stated in the above paper. BTW 100 combat hours could equate to about 20 missions, an average tour....


----------



## Chocks away! (Oct 19, 2007)

We forget that the Me-109 had a very good and simple instrument layout


----------



## Glider (Oct 19, 2007)

I have just finished reading a series of articles about the development of cockpits from WW1 to the mid 80's. Re the WW2 era it was summarised that on average the following were national trends.

UK had the best night flying instrument layout with the basic 6 in all aircraft and it is still a major influence today.

Germany had the best general layout with certain things being common across all aircraft such as colour coding for different types of instrument wiring and hydraulic pipes for differing purposes. The Fw190 was held in high regard because the cockpit was sealed with a proper floor and sides. This resulted in a cleaner cockpit with less chance of dust, mud, debris etc getting caught in cable runs. It also stopped dust and bits floating when doing negative G manoeuvres.

The USA had more problems with instrument layout as their manufactures had different approaches. They had a standard panel but it was more confusing than the British or German panel.

Re visibility it split the war into thirds. 
In the early war period the British tended to have better visibility mainly due to the reduced framing in the Spitfire compared to the 109, P40, Zero. 

In the middle period the Fw190 had high marks for its view but the majority of the aircraft were unchanged from the first period and the P47c and P51a-c had similar problems to the P40, 109 and Zero. Its worth noting that the twin fighters (Me110, Beaufighter, Mossie and P38) always tended to have a good view from the cockpit. 

In the last third things had evened up with the widespread use of teardrop canopies and the reduced framing in earlier designs such as the 109. 

Clearly this is a very high level summary and there were exceptions but I thought that it may be of interest in this thread


----------



## AL Schlageter (Oct 19, 2007)

I don't understand the comment on the A6M. There was some canopy framing but it did have a 360 degree clear canopy, as did the Ki-43.

The 109 had good view over the nose due to the inverted V engine. This allowed lead that would have the e/a still in view when other fighters would have had the e/a disappear.

Harold J. Rau was the CO of the 356th FG from Feb 43 to Nov 43. They flew P-47s. He was the CO of the 20th FG from Mar 44 to June 44. In July 44, the 20th traded their P-38s in for P-51s.


----------



## Graeme (Oct 19, 2007)

Not a fighter, but a certain contender in the 'worst' for crew conditions.


----------



## HoHun (Oct 19, 2007)

Hi Gibbage,

>Chief among these is a unit power control, incorporating an automatic manifold pressure regulator, which will control power, RPM and mixture by use of a single lever. It is obvious that there is a crying need for a device like that in combat.

Interesting to see this was demanded by combat pilots! I had not seen such a clear statement regarding its usefulness before.

(Prestel, the engineer behind the BMW 801 single-lever control, had asked "What does the pilot of a multi-engine aircraft do if he suddenly is forced to change the engine parameters quickly?" ... only to answer his own question: "He screws up." I'd say he had anticipated the problem ...)

>Most common error is to push the throttles wide open before increasing RPM. This causes detonation and subsequent engine failure. 

I believe some Allied aircraft received so-called "inter-connected throttle and rpm levers" later that made sure that when the throttle was opened, the rpm lever was advanced at the same time. However, it might be that the connection had to be overridden for cruise in order to get the the best range from the engines ...

Regards,

Henning (HoHun)


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Oct 20, 2007)

HoHun said:


> >Most common error is to push the throttles wide open before increasing RPM. This causes detonation and subsequent engine failure.


This is a very common mistake made by low time pilots who don't have a lot of "complex" aircraft time - that being an aircraft with a constant speed propeller and a lot of horse power. Even today people learning to fly an aircraft with a constant speed prop have difficulty with this but then again, its not impossible to master. Just remember any power changes involve working the prop first....


----------

