WW2 (and immediate pre-WW2) fighter cockpit sizing

[Pasoleati]

Reading British and US pilot reports of the two main German fighters (Bf 109/Fw 190), one common complaint is that both had cramped cockpits. Which raises the question why so? Based on various reports, not a single other major fighter type had so small a cockpit (including Japanese fighters). Why did the German designers have so little regard for pilot comfort, a factor that had a negative impact on the fighting efficiently of the pilot? It seems that German designers had a fanatical obsession for extreme reduction of airframe size instead of aerodynamic finesse (neither of the two are particularly clean designs). And with that pilots were treated as sardines.

 

[HoHun]

Hi Pasoleati,

Reading British and US pilot reports of the two main German fighters (Bf 109/Fw 190), one common complaint is that both had cramped cockpits. Which raises the question why so? Based on various reports, not a single other major fighter type had so small a cockpit (including Japanese fighters).

Well, here's a recent video illustrating the issue:

View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P17onqYHBjI&t=157s


Remember that Germans back then weren't that tall, on average. I believe the bad food situation during and after WW1 had had quite an impact on average height. My father is taller than my grandfather, and I'm taller than my father. And remember that the military could decide who'd get to be a fighter pilot ... if you were too tall, you'd probably end up flying bombers.

In fact, I once met an older gentleman at an airshow who told me he'd joined the Luftwaffe to become a fighter pilot, but because he was so tall, he wasn't allowed to, so he became a paratrooper instead (who were Luftwaffe troops). Purely anecdotal, from all I know he might have washed out of basic pilot training, but it illustrates the concept.

Regarding the overall ergonomics, I believe there's pretty much a consensus that both the Me 109 and the Fw 190 cockpits had quite a rational and easy-to-use arrangement of switches, levers and dials, which contributes to combat efficiency as well. I'm only mentioning this because if everything is right at hand and you don't usually need to reach across the cockpit, the available space is used more efficiently.

Rather than looking at Allied comments, it would probably be better to look at German comments to see if the pilots actually fighting in these aircraft felt they were at a disadvantage. With the wide range of diverging opinions typical for Luftwaffe fighter pilots, I'm sure this must have been commented on ...

Regards,

Henning (HoHun)

 

[sienar]

 

[HoHun]

Hi Sienar,

View attachment 755140View attachment 755141View attachment 755142View attachment 755143

Thanks a lot, that's great stuff I have never seen anywhere else before!

On p. 287, I suspect there might be a slight inaccuracy in the translation ... "rounded off" would have to be "rounded up", which means it the numbers were rounded to the next higher "round" number ("... thus eliminating the necessity for addtional allowances").

Not that it makes any practical difference, even the footnote itself was overly accurate to begin with! :-D

Regards,

Henning (HoHun)

 

[Pasoleati]

Henning, the problem with German pilot comments is that they are very vague. I mean the comments available in most published accounts. For example, Hans-Werner Lerche's book (Luftwaffe Test Pilot) is by a test pilot, yet compared to books of Eric Brown, Don Armstrong, Boone Guyton, Roland Beamont, Corky Meyer it is utterly useless for really thorough details on the aircraft flown.

Martin Drewes makes comments in his memoirs on the Bf 110 that are very much in disagreement with the wartime British report (British report being more positive!).

Peter Düttman's book has many comments that are very much fairy tales.

Günther Rall has a few short comments in his memoirs and certainly implies that the P-51/38/47/Spitfire had substantially more spacious cockpits.

I haven't still seen a single German report of Fw 190's spinning characteristics in any book. The German equivalent of Pilot's Notes are completely vague on handling issues.

And for 109 cockpit crampedness, even the Finnish test report, which is quite thorough (though no spinning tests), stresses it. By the way, there was definitely at least Finnish Bf 109 pilot 195 cm tall. Years ago I visited with a fellow enthusiast of mine a museum with a 109G-6 on display. He obtained a permission to take a seat in the cockpit (usually not allowed). He is roughly 170 cm tall (a bit round-shaped) and he told me that he felt pretty tight in it. I think he tested the Humu too (Finnish Brewster development) and the difference was massive.

While it is undoubtedly true that the average Germans of the period were smaller than today, I seriously doubt that Germans were smaller than contemporary Japanese fellows.

 

[HoHun]

Hi Pasoleati,

Henning, the problem with German pilot comments is that they are very vague.

The absence of clear complaints tells us that the cockpit can't have been that bad, else the pilots would have complained unambiguously!

With regard to vagueness, Sienar has provided the pilot measurements used by the Luftwaffe. Find a drawing of the Me 109 cockpit and check if it meets Luftwaffe standards - that'll eliminate any vagueness. You can also check if the measurements are realistic for persons of the specified size, if you're feeling fancy.

And for 109 cockpit crampedness, even the Finnish test report, which is quite thorough (though no spinning tests), stresses it.

I'd have to see the report to be able to comment on it. "Crampedness" is not a scientific term. You wouldn't fly six-hour escort missions in a Messerschmitt, so a small cockpit might have been perfectly adequate.

While it is undoubtedly true that the average Germans of the period were smaller than today, I seriously doubt that Germans were smaller than contemporary Japanese fellows.

How big the Japanese liked their cockpits doesn't really make a difference to whether a German pilots fits into a Messerschmitt cockpit.

Regards,

Henning (HoHun)

 

[kaiserbill]

It seems that German designers had a fanatical obsession for extreme reduction of airframe size instead of aerodynamic finesse (neither of the two are particularly clean designs).

This is the first time I have heard this claim.
"Not particularly clean designs" compared to what other operational fighter aircraft that flew before them?
Both first flew before the start of WW2, with the 109 flying before the Spitfire and indeed the Hurricane.

 

[Pasoleati]

This is the first time I have heard this claim.
"Not particularly clean designs" compared to what other operational fighter aircraft that flew before them?
Both first flew before the start of WW2, with the 109 flying before the Spitfire and indeed the Hurricane.

For example, the P-39*. The Bf 109G-6 had appallingly high drag coefficient.

*The P-39 has larger wing area than either the Bf 109 or the Fw 190. In Finnish tests the Bf 109G-2 with a tad over 1300 hp did 522 km/h at sea level. The P-39D did roughly the same with about 1150 hp. The latter has about 21 % greater wing area. Weight in both cases roughly 3000 kg.

 

[HoHun]

Hi Pasoleati,

In Finnish tests the Bf 109G-2 with a tad over 1300 hp did 522 km/h at sea level. The P-39D did roughly the same with about 1150 hp.

Where's your P-39D data from?

This chart shows a top speed of 307 mph (494 km/h) at sea level for the P-39D-1 on MIL power (about 1150 HP):

http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/P-39/P-39D_Performance_Chart.jpg

As does this:

http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/P-39/P-39K-D_speed-chart-1400.jpg

Regards,

Henning (HoHun)

 

[kaiserbill]

For example, the P-39*. The Bf 109G-6 had appallingly high drag coefficient.

*The P-39 has larger wing area than either the Bf 109 or the Fw 190. In Finnish tests the Bf 109G-2 with a tad over 1300 hp did 522 km/h at sea level. The P-39D did roughly the same with about 1150 hp. The latter has about 21 % greater wing area. Weight in both cases roughly 3000 kg.

The P39 flew years after the 109, and saw service introduction almost half a decade later.
Read my question again:
"Not particularly clean designs" compared to what other operational fighter aircraft that flew before them?

The contemporaries (timewise) of the 109 are aircraft such as the Gloster Gladiator, and Seversky P-35 and Hurricane. The latter two both flew after the 109.
And this is not even taking into consideration the French and Italian designs. (Macchi C200, Fiat G50, Bloch MB150 series, MS406). All these first flew after the 109.
The only real remote contemporary that flew before the 109 was the P-36 Hawk, which also first flew in the same month, May 1935.
Now look at these (almost every one later) designs and apply the question again.

The P39 is much closer in timeframe to the FW190. Both were introduced into service in the same year, 1941.
As pointed out above, the P39 was slower than the 109 at sea level.

The small wing was a design choice.