New threads and interesting conversations directly in your inbox. Sign up now and get a daily summary of the latest forum activities!
Discussion in 'Warbirds / Warbird Replicas' started by Saville, Oct 5, 2019.
I'd hazard a guess the wartime Japanese pilots were smaller than scale Luftwaffe pilots.
Have you been in the LeVier's Cosmic Wind ?
pictsidehe: The Sidlinger Hurricane was, in my view, spoiled by an oversize cockpit. Sometimes it is better to deepen the nose slightly to maintain the correct windshield height to provide canopy clearance for the pilot. Possibly a slight caricaturing of well-known subjects might be necessary. That said, an example of an adequate canopy height with the pilot situated reasonably well forward might include several examples of WW2 Japanese types, such as the Kawanishi N1-K1 or the Hayabusa.
Having sat in a Spitfire Mk.II and a Bf 109E on the same day, I found that the 'flat' upper cowl line of the Merlin's upright-vee with prominent flaring exhausts either side, combined with a broad root chord of that lovely elliptical wing created more blind areas than in the 109. The Messerschmitt's narrower root chord allowed a better forward/downward view and the inverted-vee DB motor, with exhausts effectively out of sight, provided a better forward view generally.
To the rear there was little to choose. Although much has been said about the merits or constraints of these iconic fighters' cockpits, I felt completely at home in both. I can't now recall whether the 109 was retrofitted with a Galland hood (at that time: it's since been fitted with the correct canopy at its present museum location) so that might have influenced my overall viewpoint. Whether the original 'framed' cockpit would have felt confining and limiting in general view I cannot say, but the Experten who loyally held to that fighter throughout WW2 seemed to cope pretty well. Not being too tall helped!
Also having sat in an Me 262, I can state that, with its shark-like fuselage flowing away from one's eye-line in all quadrants, it provided a tremendous all-round view.
I'd intended to attach some more images of the Taylor/Yak 9 lookalike, but they are on another computer so i'll post these later. We'd considered fitting a tapered wing and tailplane and a more powerful engine at one point, but re-creating such a prestigious type really demanded a completely new approach. Later I drafted a Yak 1 around an inverted Cirrus ll, but some recent, geared, water-cooled automotive solutions are preferable I'm sure. The ubiquitous Chevvy V-8 is a good starting point for a somewhat more robust example.
Further to the above, here are two images of the Taylor/Yak 9. Note the seat has been lowered, the undercarriage rake angle reduced from 17 to 12 degrees and leg length increased by 3", wheels being relocated on the inside of the legs.
The undercarriage modifications greatly improved the ground manoeuvring and allowed full three-point landings, something not really achievable hitherto.
Speedboat100, yes I have sat in the Le Vier Cosmic Wind. Very comfortable it was and fitted like a glove! :0)
Isn't that like what Spitfire is a like..you dress it on !
When I built my 75% P-39 mock-up I added 2 inches to the height and 4 inches to the width at the cockpit resulting in a very roomy pilots area. I was 5"11 and 190 lbs at the time and there was plenty of room. The doors (yes, the P-39 has car-like doors) were also made over scale and were still a bit small for easy access. It was still easier to get into than a Piper J-3. Many people have seen the project and no one has ever commented on it being out of scale. You just don't notice. I do think if you make the canopy/windshield over scale by very much it does look odd. The only real give-away for the Bally 1/3 scale B-17 in the height of the windshield.
I very much agree about the non-scale 1/3 B-17 cabin height. It's a tremendous achievement. Just a shame it could not have been more to scale in that area.
Yeah, the Sindlinger canopy is a look I'm hoping to avoid. Once I get my mockpit together, I can see if my scaling ideas work and alter until they do... The Hurricane had a much better forward view than the Spitfire. Bigger windscreen and downsloping nose.
Remember that some tail-dragger fighters had terrible visibility while taxiing. A 100 percent accurate replica would still have miserable visibility!
Bigger windows are sometimes an improvement.
Has anyone considered installing a video camera under the nose and feeding its images to the flat glass instrument panel?
Also consider that some Original Time Line fighters had peculiar handling, too sensitive for modern pilots. That is why Jurca, etc. enlarged tail surfaces, leading edge radii, etc.
Graham Baslee shuffles components around to make his WW1 replicas balance better than originals. Too many original WW 1 airplanes were tail-heavy .... easy to spin, but difficult to recover.
Most audiences will be satisfied if a scaled replica has a silhouette close to the original. After that, review stability, handling, weight and balance, etc. to take handling to something a junior modern pilot can fly once a month.
For example, my (pipe dream) half scale Blohm & Voss 141 has the pilot’s seat moved aft for balance and scale, but two aluminum panels need to be replaced by Plexiglas to keep wingtips in sight.
I will also re-calculate tail volume .
Well the cockpits of British and German single-seaters (fighters) tended to be much snugger than their US counterparts. The Flitzer series cockpits are also pretty small, but comfortable and wider cockpits are shown as an option on the plans. The colour picture is of self running-up the Jaguar V-12 in Clive DuCros' super, all-wooden Spitfire prototype. At 5000 RPM it sounded just like a Merlin. This and the exhaust gases smelled like 'victory', imbuing one with a heady sense of power and invincibility. :0)
But this talk of cockpits is a long way from the Me 262 thread. So to steer it back at least to twin engines, here are some views of a projected two-seat (staggered) machine based on the original prone-pilot Berlin B.9. It was to have featured a Jodel-type wing and power might have been twin Zundapps or Mikrons, although two extant converted VW might serve. Single engine performance might realistically allow some choice of precautionary landing area, I suppose.
Riggerrob: Granted many WW1 and WW2 tailskid/wheel types had poor forward views, but that does not exclude them from consideration in my opinion. One just accepts the discipline and traditional piloting skills associated with type. Once mastered these are not forgotten, and the possibilities are so worthwhile. These images show the typical lack of forward view, but using the rudder when taxiing is straightforward. The spin characteristics of all Z-Types demonstrate recovery from a 7-turn developed spin in 1/4 turn in either direction. Spin rate is a very fast 1 turn per second, nonetheless.
Took some measurements.
Yeah, the cockpit is pretty snug.....but only based on leg room. The width is not that bad.
Actually I refrained from STARTING with a scale factor just because it's adjustable for performance (given the set of engines) and pilot accommodation.
Another reason is a very important point a previous poster mentioned (can't find the post just now):
Single Engine performance in the envelope.
Dear Radicaldude 1234,
Looks like leg length is only limited by how many bulkheads you are willing to cut holes in.
Cockpit height is limited by the distance between the wing top spar and the canopy top. Remember that many WW2 fighters (P-40 and P-51) the pilot almost sat on the wings' top skin.
If cockpit height is still a problem, you could recline the seat .. er .. tilt the seat back … er .. slide the bottom edge of the seat back forward to increase recline angle. Then review weight and balance.
Despite their questionable reliability for human flight, today's current model turbines would have made the 262's designers green with envy.
Hard to believe that almost all airliners today are copies of a Me-262....some genious that Willy Messerschmitt !
Yes, very hard to believe.
Does anyone have or know of a report on the flying/handling qualities of the me262. Pilots report etc... stall character, controllability etc
Found thiese via a simple search http://zenoswarbirdvideos.com/Images/Me262/ME262PILOTDEBRIEF.pdf
Haven't run across much. I have this from Eric Brown's book "Wings on my Sleeve":
Poor single engine performance - on takeoff lose an engine before reaching 190mph and the pilot is in trouble
Jumo 004 engines subject to flame out with rapid throttle movements (not sure how the PBS does in this regard)
No dive brakes
The last might be considered for a replica depending upon engine response/performance
Separate names with a comma.