"Comfort" in cockpits of BOB adversaries

[Jaws2002]

Modern era western civilians, used to have everything at their disposal judge war machines from an old era......


I bet was more comfortable in the pit of the 109 than it was in the frozen trenches in Stalingrad.
We can argue and comment all we want eighty years later in a peaceful era.
Comfort don't mean crap in war. The Russians flew with open canopies in frigid winter and didn't whine like this guy.
Back then people were not used to be pampered like we are today, on top of that it was war, and in war you use what they give you the best you can.
They did mighty good throughout the war in those "oh my God this is cramped" Bf109 cockpits.
For the ammount of time the 109 had fuel that pit was plenty comfortable.

With this whiny generation of pampered crybabies, God help us if we have to fight a real war, against a real enemy.

[Sutts]

Originally Posted by Jaws2002

Modern era western civilians, used to have everything at their disposal judge war machines from an old era......


I bet was more confortable in the pit of the 109 than it was in the frozen trenches in Stalingrad.
We can argue and comment all we want eighty years later in a peaceful confort.
Confort don't mean crap in war. The Russians flew with open canopies in frigid winter and didn't whine like this guy.
Back then people were not used to be pampered like we are today, on top of that it was war, and in war you use what they give you the best you can.
They did mighty good throughout the war in those "oh my God this is cramped" Bf109 cockpits.
For the ammount of time the 109 had fuel that pit was plenty confortable.

With this whiny generation of pampered crybabies, God help us if we have to fight a real war, against a real enemy.

You guys are incredible. In what way was he being a cry baby? The cockpit is very cramped compared to the Spit and the canopy is dangerous in a crash situation with very poor visibility. He said he would much RATHER go to war in a Spit which is a perfectly reasonable argument given these issues.

He isn't saying the 109 is a hopeless war machine - just that he'd rather have more room, much better visibility and a better chance of surviving a ground flip if the choice was his to make. You can't argue with the facts.

[Jaws2002]

Originally Posted by Sutts

He isn't saying the 109 is a hopeless war machine - just that he'd rather have more room, much better visibility and a better chance of surviving a ground flip if the choice was his to make. You can't argue with the facts.

My point is, he is "evaluating" this two aircraft based on today's "requirenments". Most of his points are about the comfort and safety, wich in a world war two type of strugle for national survival don't mean squat.
In the case of a ground flip actually the extremely solid frame cannopy of the 109 was a lot safer than most late war bubble sliding canopies.

You analyse fighting machines based on their fighting qualities, not based on pilot comfort. Pilot comfort on a short range fighter are way down the list of requirenments.
There are plenty fighting qualities of the 109 (climb, dive, negative G, Cannons, small, hard to see) that make the 109 of that era a very dangerous oponent for anything in the skies.

This is like some of the "reviews" you see online for fighting guns today.
Oh, the stock doesn't look good, is not very ergonomic, the plastic feels cheap, the collor is off...... It's a fighting gun, damit! Is the fighting qualities like reliability, accuracy, easy to learn and use is what matters. Not the color of the paint.

[Triggaaar]

Originally Posted by Trumper

If you actually listen to what he says ,they are facts.

You're suggesting that forum members with zero flying experience listen to the facts given by an expert on the matter? I think you've got the wrong forum.

Originally Posted by Jaws2002

Modern era western civilians, used to have everything at their disposal judge war machines from an old era......

Paul Day is not just a civilian used to sitting in an armchair watching these birds on the discovery channel.

Comfort don't mean crap in war.

It's not just about comfort. It's how easy it is to keep turning and looking over your shoulders, trying to spot the enemy. Most WWII reports state that the victor was usually the one that saw the enemy first, so cockpit view and room to turn are very important.

[KG26_Alpha]

To keep this thread from ending in the gutter
some posts have been removed to keep on topic
and make for easier reading.

[Krt_Bong]

If you can glean anything from the video is the apparrent size of his head within the canopy, something that others have commented on when looking at game screenshots of the pilots in the same airplanes looking to be smaller than the scale that they should look.

[Jebus23]

I felt claustraphobic just looking at the video of the messerschmitt, but there might be advantages to that. A smaller area would make you feel like the plane is in your control more, like an extension of yourself. Useful when landing and needing to be precise.

[Skoshi Tiger]

Originally Posted by Triggaaar

It's not just about comfort. It's how easy it is to keep turning and looking over your shoulders, trying to spot the enemy. Most WWII reports state that the victor was usually the one that saw the enemy first, so cockpit view and room to turn are very important.

+1
Also discomfort increases fatigue. Fatigue increases the chance of errors when operating in stressful situations.


Cheers!