Isn't that like what Spitfire is a like..you dress it on !View attachment 89309 Hi View attachment 89309 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)
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.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.
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.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.
Actually I refrained from STARTING with a scale factor just because it's adjustable for performance (given the set of engines) and pilot accommodation.Remember the idea of building a scaled-down WW2 fighter is that it will LOOK like the real thing, at least from a distance. Scale it down too far and you will have even more trouble getting it to look right, IMHO.
If the OP wants to determine the feasibility of 2/3rd scale ME-262, then that's OK. Let him. If someone else wants a half-scale, then that's ok too. But why make it more difficult for the OP?
Haven't run across much. I have this from Eric Brown's book "Wings on my Sleeve":Does anyone have or know of a report on the flying/handling qualities of the me262. Pilots report etc... stall character, controllability etc