The more technical, objective, and detailed the report, the better. Opinion is just that, opinion and without the details of the aircraft, worthless.
For example, the RAE investigation into the flying qualities of the Bf-109 contradicts many of the "opinion" areas given in buzzsaw's accounts.
The visibility from the Bf-109 in the RAE report:
Quote:
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.
|
http://kurfurst.org/Tactical_trials/...ls/Morgan.html
The direct vision opening is noted as being a particularly good feature.
It could be the pilot in buzzsaw's anecdotes flew an aircraft not equipped with armored glass versus the other that was equipped with it or some other technical detail.
Point is that without the details, we do not know and outside of passing interest, the information is useless for attempts to reproduce a simulation of the experience.