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.
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).
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 ...
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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 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 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 P-36 had a lower drag coefficient than the Bf 109G-6.
It is totally irrelevant when something flew first. The P-39 did not have any aerodynamic feature that wasn't available to 109's designers due to timing. My speed data is estimated from the December 3, 1941 report (which gives roughly 540 km/h at 5000 ft). With 1310 hp the Bf 109G-2 did 522 km/h. With 1150 hp that would be reduced to about 500 km/h. I am quite certain that the P-39D did more than 500 km/h at sea level.
And again, compare the Fw 190 at the same power to the P-39 and you will find the latter again faster.
Yes, the small wing was a design choice that was not forced on Willy's team by anyone. They tried to do it the cheapest way.
I don't see why one should "estimate" a data point from the report you mention, especially when there's only a datapoint from 5000 ft, and just one data point for the throttled condition.
I don't see why one should "estimate" a data point from the report you mention, especially when there's only a datapoint from 5000 ft, and just one data point for the throttled condition.
Because that chart and the report I mentioned differ in other respects too. And if you scroll down a bit there is a curve on the P-39Q stating 321 mph at "military power" at sea level. That is 516 km/h. According to multiple German reports on the same site, Bf 109G-6 at Kampfleistung did about 490 km/h at sea level. And the Kampfleistung is the 1310 hp rating while again the P-39Q military power is probably around 1150-1200 hp (pilot manual says 1125 hp with 15,500 ft. as FTH) at SL.
And then one should bear in mind the actual performance under frontline conditions after accumulating hours. The Bf 109G had issues with poorly fitting cowling (=more drag) and in general it "wore" more quickly (like wing surfaces by mechanics walking on it) due to substandard finish and quality because the design stressed small size everywhere. No margin for error. And in wartime errors occur.
Because that chart and the report I mentioned differ in other respects too. And if you scroll down a bit there is a curve on the P-39Q stating 321 mph at "military power" at sea level. That is 516 km/h.
The scope of the report where you get your hypothetical speed from seems to have been airspeed indicator calibration, and from the table, I'm not even sure they accounted for compressbility error since there's no mention of that, and no EAS column either. That would result in overly high speed values, and the other sources I pointed out do indeed show lower speeds.
Try your best to quantify that, based on contemporary evidence, in a separate thread, because it has nothing to do with the cockpit question.
It's not really a mystery where the drag on the Me 109G-6 stems from (and it's not the cockpit). Messerschmitt actually investigated the issue, and this is what they came up with:
Depending on the fitting of gondola guns, the shape of the cowling and the configuration of the landing gear (retractable tail wheel, wheel well covers), there was a difference of more than 50 km/h in top speed on the same basic Gustav series, on the same power.
With regard to what the Me 109G-6 was actually capable of in service condition ... well, there's this report from RAF tactical trials:
The Me.109 was compared with a Spitfire LF.IX for speed and all-round manoeuvrability at heights up to 25,000 feet. Up to 16,000 feet the Spitfire holds a slight advantage when using 18 lb. boost, from 16,000 to 20,000 feet the Me.109 gains slightly in speed, and at heights above 20,000 feet the Spitfire again leads in speed to the extent of approximately 7 m.p.h.
A while ago, I prepared the attached chart to illustrate the performance of a Me 109G-6/U2 as suggested by the "Leistungszusammenstellung" (thin line), a more or less representative Spitfire LF IX, the designated altitudes at which the captured and tested Me 109G-6/U2 with all of its drag-producing features was faster and slower, and the Me 109 speed required to match the British test result (thick line).
<Edit: I had pulled an old version of the below graph from of the archive ... here's the corrected version now:>
As you can see, there is a gap of about 40 km/h between German expectation and British observation - in favour of the Me 109.
It is not a mystery where the drag of the 109G-6 came from: Willy's poor design. The fact is that even the Hurricane had lower drag coefficient than the G-2, let alone G-6 (without wing guns). Table attached. The table is done by an actual aircraft engineer who has actually had design input in a real aircraft, being involved in them and flown them/in them and has seen that reality is not always what Excel says.
Let's be generous: 470 km/h at sea level, with +16 lbs/sqin for the 12 MG version, which didn't have the extra drag from the cannon installation.
So who now wants to congratulate Sidney Camm that his design was superior to Messerschmitt's because it had the lower drag coefficients?
Clearly, these coefficients are of quite limited value if you're comparing significantly differing designs. Within the scope of a single design, they're much more useful. Just look at the NACA reports on drag reduction on the Brewster Buffalo or the Bell Airacobra, for example.
However, treating drag coefficients as Top Trumps figures ... sure, one could do that, but it takes the discussion to the level of a children's game! ;-)
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.