The Pilot Factor

[FLYBOYJ]

Great thread guys!

I think many times when we discuss aircraft performance on this site we do miss the "Pilot Factor." We'll split hairs about speed, climb performance and wing loading but many times neglect the fact that some pilots either have or lack the skills or knowledge to fully exploit the performance of their aircraft. Many years ago I was quite fortunate to be introduced to some aerobatic training and applying some of those lessons to basic aerial combat tactics and not only were my skills improved as a civilian pilot, but it was an eye opener to what we are fed about aerial combat by either the media or by authors/ researchers who never even flown an aircraft.

 

[stona]

The difference in performance between types, even on the same side could matter. 'Dizzy' Allen, who wrote a very idiosyncratic and opinionated memoir of his time flying Hurricanes in the BoB recalled an effort to assemble a larger formation of squadrons comprising both Spitfires and Hurricanes. Allen's Hurricane squadron took off and climbed with a squadron of Spitfires only to be left, in his words

"in a haze of 100 octane petrol fumes, and we were on our own, which is how we preferred it."

However, once combat was started the opinion of 'Laddie' Lucas may be more pertinent, though he missed the BoB.

"Subject to height, which was critical, there was not a lot to choose between the Hurricane I, the Spitfire I and the Messerschmitt 109 E in actual combat."

Lucas was a pilot who would have wrung the best out of whatever he was flying. The important point is that the performance differences between the aircraft (marginal in the Spitfire/Bf109) are less important than the relative abilities of the pilots flying them...the pilot factor.


Cheers

Steve

 

[GregP]

Interesting thought and one that Ihave shared for a LONG time myself.

And, FlyboyJ, it has LONG frustrated me that the best works in aviation are written by non-pilots. Their lack if knowledge on it becomes obvious as you read the books and see nothing of how the plane flies, and I'm glad someone else beside me is noticing that. I'm SURE we aren't alone here ... inn having noticed that fact.

 

[pbehn]

Geoffrey Wellum in a TV interview said he would have preferred a 109 in the BoB. he said the 109 could always dive away and had a slightly higher top speed, it was therefore the 109 pilots choice to fight or not + the 109 had cannon. On the same programme a German ace said he would prefer the Spitfire as it could turn and climb slightly better and so it was easier to stay in the fight escorting the bombers.

 

[stona]

Geoffrey Wellum in a TV interview said he would have preferred a 109 in the BoB. he said the 109 could always dive away and had a slightly higher top speed, it was therefore the 109 pilots choice to fight or not + the 109 had cannon. On the same programme a German ace said he would prefer the Spitfire as it could turn and climb slightly better and so it was easier to stay in the fight escorting the bombers.

Which illustrates the point nicely

I've sat in both a Spitfire and a Bf 109 and I think I'd prefer the Spitfire simply on the grounds that whilst the Spitfire was cramped the 109 was ridiculously tight. I'm of average height and I suppose fairly heavily built (front three in Rugby Union, many years ago) and I couldn't put my shoulders square in the 109.
This is an entirely spurious reason to pick any aeroplane, neither was exactly comfortable!

Cheers

Steve

 

[fastmongrel]

Which illustrates the point nicely

I've sat in both a Spitfire and a Bf 109 and I think I'd prefer the Spitfire simply on the grounds that whilst the Spitfire was cramped the 109 was ridiculously tight. I'm of average height and I suppose fairly heavily built (front three in Rugby Union, many years ago) and I couldn't put my shoulders square in the 109.
This is an entirely spurious reason to pick any aeroplane, neither was exactly comfortable!

Cheers

Steve

Ex Rugby forward as well though back row usually No6. I have sat in a Hurricane cockpit which fitted me fine, I reckon with a bit of a wriggle I could get in a Spitfire cockpit but would need to have a 109 rivetted up around me. How anyone over about 5'6" flew a 109 is beyond me.

 

[stona]

I suppose the serious point in the tight fit of the 109 cockpit was that it made it virtually impossible to look behind, or as much behind as the limited view allowed.

In the 109 I was seated on a cushion rather than a parachute, but the closed canopy touched the top of my head and it didn't take much for my nose to touch the sides when I turned my head. Unbelievably claustrophobic and something probably not appreciated by allied pilots, particularly of the roomier US types, or modern pilots.

Cheers

Steve

 

[fastmongrel]

How did the 109 pilots manage to turn there heads whilst wearing an oxygen mask. I know the LW mask was a smaller profile than the RAF types but still it must have been awkward I wonder why a Spitfire type canopy wasnt tried.

 

[pbehn]

How did the 109 pilots manage to turn there heads whilst wearing an oxygen mask. I know the LW mask was a smaller profile than the RAF types but still it must have been awkward I wonder why a Spitfire type canopy wasnt tried.

I think as a population we are generally taller and more heavily built, todays average German probably wouldnt fit in a 109 at all.. Winkle Brown was small and he thought this was an advantage, some planes went into violent oscillations and its the only reason he could figure how he survived while other pilots didnt. Some have theorised that Baders lack of lower limbs was an advantage when pulling high "G"s. Both could be sound theories or complete BS.

 

[stona]

Germans in the late 19th and early 20th centuries were generally about 1cm shorter than their British counterparts. The data for the German birth cohorts between 1900 and 1925 is not available.

In the1891-95 cohorts the heights for Germans and British were 168.48 and 169.37. The next available comparison is 1926-30 and 172.99 (German) and 173.60 (British). The average height for Britons and Germans in the immediate post WW1 birth cohorts who would have been in their early twenties in 1939/45 must have been around 171/2 cms.

In 1980 the average heights were 180.17 (German) and 176.83 (British) so we have got taller. I'm 173 cms tall, so comparable with a WW2 average pilot.

Cheers

Steve

 

[pbehn]

Germans in the late 19th and early 20th centuries were generally about 1cm shorter than their British counterparts. The data for the German birth cohorts between 1900 and 1925 is not available.

In the1891-95 cohorts the heights for Germans and British were 168.48 and 169.37. The next available comparison is 1926-30 and 172.99 (German) and 173.60 (British). The average height for Britons and Germans in the immediate post WW1 birth cohorts who would have been in their early twenties in 1939/45 must have been around 171/2 cms.

In 1980 the average heights were 180.17 (German) and 176.83 (British) so we have got taller. I'm 173 cms tall, so comparable with a WW2 average pilot.

Cheers

Steve

Having lived in Germany for years I would say on average they are taller than Brits now but teenagers in UK and Germany in general are taller. The Dutch used to be one of the smallest nationalities in Europe now they are on average the biggest in the world. Steve, I was thinking about European teenagers and early twenties, I think WW2 AC designers would be eliminating maybe 30% of their populations with their designs.

 

[pbehn]

Question to pilots!
Much is made in Formula 1 about the difficulty of controlling a car when subjected to side ways "G" forces of 4 or 5. If you are in a plane and subjected to +6 or -3 G then is it possible to look behind or scan the sky. In short is it possible to have any idea where your adversary is when making such maneuvers. I have frequently read of pilots "greying out" in such a case do you know where everything is or just estimate?

 

[FLYBOYJ]

Question to pilots!
Much is made in Formula 1 about the difficulty of controlling a car when subjected to side ways "G" forces of 4 or 5. If you are in a plane and subjected to +6 or -3 G then is it possible to look behind or scan the sky. In short is it possible to have any idea where your adversary is when making such maneuvers. I have frequently read of pilots "greying out" in such a case do you know where everything is or just estimate?

If you're committed in a high G maneuver, you're either attacking or evading. Speaking in terms of just "aviating" your eyes better be front center. I don't see it practical (or possible) to be swinging your head around during sustained high maneuvers.

Biff - you out there?

 

[pbehn]

If you're committed in a high G maneuver, you're either attacking or evading. Speaking in terms of just "aviating" your eyes better be front center. I don't see it practical (or possible) to be swinging your head around during sustained high maneuvers.

Biff - you out there?

Flyboy that is my thought too. If you are focussed on an opponent in front even greying out you have your eyes in front, while under attack I do not believe it possible to keep your eyes on an opponent behind while subjected to such G forces. I have never flown a plane but I did race motorcycles, ignoring slipstream being behind gives an automatic advantage, just break later and power on sooner and you catch the guy in front. Biff? heylllp?

 

[GregP]

It was not possible for me when I was pulling 5+ gs while flying aerobatics. I cleared the airspace and then checked the immediate area before pulling. It is VERY possible to look for traffic at ... say ... 3 - 3.5 gs, but not really practial at 5+ g's ... at least for me it wasn't.

I am not a racer, but I'd be very surprised if they can look around a 5+ g's and even MORE suprised if the GET to 5+ g's. When I see a cockpit g-meter around the course at Unlimited Gold Final speeeds (like Stevo Hinton Jr. in Voodoo). I don't SEE 5+ gs. I see low gs to maybe 3.5 ... with VERY intermitten forays above 4 g's. Even I can look around a bit at that g-level.

 

[pbehn]

It was not possible for me when I was pulling 5+ gs while flying aerobatics. I cleared the airspace and then checked the immediate area before pulling. It is VERY possible to look for traffic at ... say ... 3 - 3.5 gs, but not really practial at 5+ g's ... at least for me it wasn't.

I am not a racer, but I'd be very surprised if they can look around a 5+ g's and even MORE suprised if the GET to 5+ g's. When I see a cockpit g-meter around the course at Unlimited Gold Final speeeds (like Stevo Hinton Jr. in Voodoo). I don't SEE 5+ gs. I see low gs to maybe 3.5 ... with VERY intermitten forays above 4 g's. Even I can look around a bit at that g-level.

Thanks GregP. What I mean as a question is, if you are maneuvering at the level that causes grey out is it possible to look over your shoulder scan the sky or keep your eyes on an opponent. From my experience with zero G if an opponent passed me on my left he assumed I was always on his right, I used to switch immediately, if the next curve was left, then stay there unless I had done that before and then sometimes I would hang out on the right (outside) just to keep the guy guessing and nervous.

 

[BiffF15]

Gents,
I will jump in tomorrow (am on iPad)! Bottom line you are good looking over the shoulder up to about 6 or 7 for the average guy. The key when defensive is to NEVER LOSE SIGHT. Lose sight lose the fight.
Cheers,
Biff

 

[GregP]

Well that's from a fighter pilot and I have to say he knows what he's saying. Perhaps it IS possible, but when I was flying there was nobody in formation with me trying to pass, and it is likely I wasn't looking around at 5+ g's because I didn't HAVE to. In a race, I suppose it is a requirment, not a luxury.

Still, when I look at cockpit g-meter in an Unlimited Gold race, I don't SEE 5+gs.

Here is an in-cockpit video: The g-meter is bpttom left:

[video]http://www.dashware.net/videos/p-51-cockpit-forward-view-2013-reno-air-races/[/video]

Sure, he hits some g-peaks, but when he needs to look around, he has less than 3.5 g's MOST of the time.

Of course, at Reno, the guy passing MUST pass to the outside or be disqualified ... and if he TRIES to pass to the inside, everyone as advised on common frequency.

 

[Greyman]

I forget the basic details - but an Eagle pilot once told me that he could essentially look around at very high 'G' (I think he had said over +9) by leaning forward slightly and kind of pivoting his torso on his hips to look rearwards - as opposed to what we normally do in a car/computer chair and rotate everything; the neck, shoulder blades, back, etc.

I'm butchering the explanation to his technique but that was the basic idea.

 

[stona]

Having lived in Germany for years I would say on average they are taller than Brits now but teenagers in UK and Germany in general are taller. The Dutch used to be one of the smallest nationalities in Europe now they are on average the biggest in the world. Steve, I was thinking about European teenagers and early twenties, I think WW2 AC designers would be eliminating maybe 30% of their populations with their designs.

The average German today is over 3cms taller than the average Briton today. During WW2 the average heights were more similar, about 172-3 cms, the British being slightly taller.

Of course not all men are average and some very tall men did manage to fly the Bf 109.

Cheers

Steve