From the pilots view of things.....

[davparlr]

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]

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

Hs129, ok...why not?

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

 

[Soren]

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

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]

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 -

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

Hmmmm.....

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

APPENDIX I

Pilots' Opinions on Cockpit Layout and View

1. Cockpit Layout. – A photograph of the cockpit interior is given in Fig. 3. The two instruments with white dials at the top of the dash-board are stick and rudder position indicators, fitted for the R.A.E. tests ; a reflector sight normally occupies this space. It will be seen that the German A.S.I. has been replaced by an English A.S.I. and English oxygen equipment has been fitted. Apart from these alterations the layout is standard.

All three pilots gave their opinions on cockpit layout, comfort and convenience, based on their experience during the handling tests, and their views are summarised below.

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.

Noise. – With the side windows open the noise in the cockpit is very considerable. It is lessened by closing the side windows, but even then the cockpit is far noisier at full throttle than I that of the Hurricane or Spitfire.

Main Flying Controls . – The control column position is good, and the slight offset of the grip is convenient (see Fig. 3). The position of the rudder pedals makes for too reclining an attitude, Putting extra weight on the small of the back. A bad feature is the absence of any fore-and-aft adjustment of the rudder pedals.

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.

Throttle. – The throttle arrangements were described by one pilot as " marvellously simple, there just being one lever with no gate or over-ride to worry about ". It may be mentioned here that, while the pilots were not greatly impressed with the Me.109 as an aircraft, the D.B.601 direct injection engine came in for very favourable comment. The response to throttle opening is particularly good, it is apparently impossible to choke the engine, and there is no tendency to splutter and stop when the aircraft is subjected to a negative g by suddenly pushing the stick forward.

Airscrew Control. – This works well, no difficulty being experienced during the tests. The pitch control lever would be better placed alongside the throttle than on the dash-board.**

Undercarriage Control. – The undercarriage selector is free from complication and cannot be criticised. The absence of an undercarriage warning hooter seems strange to British pilots.

Brakes. – These are foot operated. They work well, but the standard Dunlop system operated from a toggle on the stick is thought to provide a more sensitive control.

Instrument Panel. – Except for the absence of a blind flying panel, the instruments present are adequate and the grouping is good, flying instruments being on the left and engine instruments on the right. The absence of a gyro horizon is severely felt when flying in cloud. The instruments are clear to read. No flying was done at night, but the lighting arrangements appeared to be rather inadequate.

Ancillary Equipment. – Guns, sights, wireless, etc., were not tested. The wireless layout appears to be well placed, and the machine gun and cannon firing switches, mounted in the grip of the stick, come readily to hand. The electrical panel on the lower right of the dash-board would be difficult to use until the pilot became familiar with it, as the various press buttons cannot readily be distinguished.

An interesting feature is the jettison arrangement for the Verey cartridges, designed to enable a pilot to quickly jettison the cartridges before a forced landing in enemy territory, so that he does not give away the signal of the day.

2. View. – Fig. 4 shows the general windscreen layout. The flat front panel is inclined at about 55 deg. to the horizontal when the aircraft is in flying attitude ; the large corner panels are also flat, in contrast to the curved panels of the Spitfire and Hurricane.*** The port corner panel is divided into two parts vertically, and the forward portion hinges inward about its leading edge, forming a direct vision opening about 9 in. high by 3 in. wide at the top and 6 in. wide at the bottom; this opening is inclined at 26 deg. to the direction of flight so that the width of forward vision is about 2 in.

The cockpit hood does not slide back. It is hinged at the starboard side for entry and exit, and cannot thus be opened in flight. Sliding windows are fitted, one in each side panel of the hood. The hood jettisoning arrangements for emergency exit are interesting. The hood is spring loaded, and on pushing the jettison lever the whole of the hood and the wireless mast behind it are flung clear backwards.****

The view forward when taxying is very bad, partly owing to the high ground attitude of the aircraft, and partly because the hood cannot be slid back to enable the pilot to look round the edge of the windscreen.

When in flight, the view forward and sideways is normal, being similar to the Hurricane; the windscreen framework members are sufficiently narrow, and do not catch the pilot's eye nor create blind spots. Sideways and rearwards the view is about the same as the Spitfire and Hurricane, but the cramped position of the pilot in the cockpit makes it difficult to look downward or upward to the rear, and the tailplane can only be seen with an effort.

The direct vision opening gives a large field of view and is completely draught free at all speeds. A high speed can thus be maintained in'bad weather conditions, whereas on the Humcane or Spitfire the pilot must slide back the hood and look round the edge of the windscreen to obtain a view-forward in rain or cloud, and can only do this by flying at fairly low speed. The direct vision opening also assists landing, as the high position of the nose obstructs the view forward during the hold off, and the opening is in the correct position to give a view of the ground. The direct vision opening obviously satisfies a very real need, for the early Me.109s were not fitted with this device. The windscreen panels are clear and free from distortion,*** and do not oil up in flight. The hood sliding panels are difficult to open, particularly at high speeds.

* 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]

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:-

(i) The constant speed airscrew is fully automatic and requires no operation
by the pilot, as r.p.m. and pitch setting are governed by the throttle opening
and engine load. This is a great advantage in combat, being one thing
less for the pilot to worry about. He can, however, control the pitch
manually in the event of failure of the automatic control.

(ii) The oil and coolant temperatures are thermostatically controlled.

(iii) The view forward is rather better than in the Me.109E, but is still poorer
than in the Spitfire, altough the straight perspex panels on each side
of the windscreen are preferable to the curved panels of the Spitfire.
The view to the rear is greatly restricted by the 9mm. section of armor
plate which protects the pilot's neck and the back of his head.

....

Conclusion

10. The Me.109F, altough very similiar in appearance to the Me.109E is much
superior in all-round performance. The fact that the airscrew is fully
automatic, and the oil and coolant temperatures thermostatically controlled,
helps to make the aircraft a simple fighting machine, as the only things then
occupying the pilot's attention in combat are his throttle, flying controls
and guns.

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.

9. The small size of the 109G remains a prime reason for its good performance. It is recommended that British aeroplanes should be designed to be small, but that skittishness on the ground should be prevented by having a nosewheel undercart.

10. British cockpits should be freed of auxiliary technical controls which need the attention of the pilot, and the regulation of oxygen flow, adjustment of coolant and oil radiator flaps and airscrew pitch should be controlled by reliable automatics.

...

Mechanical Features.

13. The technical features which affect the operation of the aeroplane are similar to those for the 109F and are briefly recapitulated here for convenience. The 109 is a small aeroplane with a big engine and this largely gets its high performance. The cockpit is correspondingly small. The supercharger is driven through a hydraulic clutch in the same way as the D.B.601. This gives the effect of a multi-speed drive without attention from the pilot. The maximum boost is also automatically limited.

14. The airscrew control can be selected for hand setting or for automatic. The hand control is a rocking switch on the throttle knob. In automatic, the airscrew governor is operated by the throttle lever to give the appropriate revs at all throttle openings, and there is no control for the pilot. The effect on range and engine life from always having the best combination of boost and rev must be good and the pilot at the same time is relieved from attending to the pitch control lever.

15. The airscrew is electrically operated, and the handbook warns against overspeeding if a dive is started suddenly, so that the pitch change is presumably slow like our electric airscrews.

16. The flaps of both the oil and coolant radiators are thermostatically controlled. The operating fluid is engine oil for the oil radiators, and hydraulic system oil for the coolant radiators' flaps. Control of the coolant radiator flaps by the pilot is possible but normally he will set it to automatic. The flap operation is mechanical, by a wheel and the undercarriage retraction is hydraulic without emergency hand pump.

Cockpit.

17. The fuselage is clearly designed to be as small as possible to give the maximum performance, and consequently the cockpit is rather cramped for anyone over 6 feet tall. The controls are laid out so that all ordinary ancillary controls are worked by the left hand, the right side of the cockpit having only switch buttons. This layout, combined with the automatic setting of airscrew pitch and of coolant flaps for water and oil, simplifies the task of the pilot.

18. Details of the controls, which are similar to those on some allied aircraft, are given in the German handbook of which a translation is held in the Enemy Aircraft Section, H.Q., M.E. A photo of the cockpit, consisting of three photos put together, is Figure 6. The rudder pedals are level with the seat so that the pilot is in a good position to resist acceleration; all ancillary controls are convenient to reach and to use.

19. Owing to the inverted engine, the top of the front cowling is narrow and the view forward on each side is reasonably good. The instruments supplied are:‑ (OMMITTED)

20. The hood is small and has no curved surfaces. The thick perspex panels are flat and allow a good view through them. A sliding panel on top and each side allows a clear view in bad conditions. The hood is jettisoned by a red lever on the left side.

 

[FLYBOYJ]

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]

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

 

[Kurfürst]

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]

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]

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]

Great information Kurfürst, I completely agree on all points.

 

[thewritingwriter89]

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)

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

 

[pbfoot]

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]

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]

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)