From the pilots view of things.....

[HoHun]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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)

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]

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]

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.

"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?

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

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

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.

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]

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]

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]

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

 

[FLYBOYJ]

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]

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]

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]

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

8)

 

[Njaco]

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.......