Discussion
Big fat radials allowed the fuselage to be wider - with resultant wider cockpits. The P-47 Thunderbolt had probably the most spacious single seat cockpit of its era - the joke being that, if flying a P-47, the best evasive action to take was to undo the harness and run around the cockpit.
American fighters with in line liquid cooled engines had cockpit dimensions more in line with that of a Spitfire or Hurricane.
If you want a really cramped cockpit, have a look inside a Messerschmit 109.
American fighters with in line liquid cooled engines had cockpit dimensions more in line with that of a Spitfire or Hurricane.
If you want a really cramped cockpit, have a look inside a Messerschmit 109.
Eric Mc said:
If you want a really cramped cockpit, have a look inside a Messerschmit 109.
I remember watching a documentry about the Battle of Britain with the late Raymond Baxter, during one bit he Eric Mc said:
American fighters with in line liquid cooled engines had cockpit dimensions more in line with that of a Spitfire or Hurricane.
I don't think that's strictly true; the P40 for example has a bloody enormous cockpit!I think, in terms of American cockpit size there was something cultural going on. If you look at something like the PT19 Cornell (an in-line engined primary trainer), it is in many ways the equivalent of the Miles Magister yet is about 30% bigger and this is reflected in the size of the cockpit (which again, is bloody enormous).
Ginetta G15 Girl said:
Eric Mc said:
American fighters with in line liquid cooled engines had cockpit dimensions more in line with that of a Spitfire or Hurricane.
I don't think that's strictly true; the P40 for example has a bloody enormous cockpit!I think, in terms of American cockpit size there was something cultural going on. If you look at something like the PT19 Cornell (an in-line engined primary trainer), it is in many ways the equivalent of the Miles Magister yet is about 30% bigger and this is reflected in the size of the cockpit (which again, is bloody enormous).
How big was the P-51 Mustang cockpit - or the P-38?
Might be something to do with fuel capacity too? The Spitfire, Hurricane and Bf109 had limited range, but the American aircraft mentioned were designed to have greater range. I think the fuel tanks of all these aircraft were in the fuselage, with the exception of the P-51 which had additional wing tanks. Pretty sure it has fuel gauges in the floorboards in front of the seat.
When I was building a P-51 model recently I thought that there was an error in the cockpit size - it's massive, and the seat seems very high: The pilot seems to sit on it rather than in it. It's correct though:
When I was building a P-51 model recently I thought that there was an error in the cockpit size - it's massive, and the seat seems very high: The pilot seems to sit on it rather than in it. It's correct though:
Edited by dr_gn on Sunday 3rd August 22:18
The P-51 is a bigger aircraft than the Spitfire -as Dr Grn says - because it was designed to carry more fuel.
European fighter design in the 1930s concentrated on point intercerptors - whereas American fighter design would have expected to intercept enemy bombers coming in over the ocean before they hit the coast - so would have needed a longer range.
The P-47 was a big beast because of its huge engine and the massive turbocharger placed under the cockpt - so it was going to be a big aircarft anyway.
European fighter design in the 1930s concentrated on point intercerptors - whereas American fighter design would have expected to intercept enemy bombers coming in over the ocean before they hit the coast - so would have needed a longer range.
The P-47 was a big beast because of its huge engine and the massive turbocharger placed under the cockpt - so it was going to be a big aircarft anyway.
There was difference in engine policy between the US Navy and the US Army.
For reliability purposes, the US Navy insisted on their fighters being fitted with air cooled radials. The Army on the other hand, thought (as most air forces did at the time) that liquid cooled in line engines could give a fighter aircraft a slimmer profile and a higher top speed.
Fundamentally, that is what resulted in US Navy fighters of the 1930s having a tubby profile. The Grumman F3F, the Grumman F4F and especially the Brewster F2A were all rather portly.
The interesting factor to emerge from these naval designs was that, if the radial was properly installed in a well thought out cowling, the performance was as good as a liquid cooled engined fighter. The aeroplane that showed what could be achieved with a well packaged radial was the Mitsubishi A6M Zero.
For reliability purposes, the US Navy insisted on their fighters being fitted with air cooled radials. The Army on the other hand, thought (as most air forces did at the time) that liquid cooled in line engines could give a fighter aircraft a slimmer profile and a higher top speed.
Fundamentally, that is what resulted in US Navy fighters of the 1930s having a tubby profile. The Grumman F3F, the Grumman F4F and especially the Brewster F2A were all rather portly.
The interesting factor to emerge from these naval designs was that, if the radial was properly installed in a well thought out cowling, the performance was as good as a liquid cooled engined fighter. The aeroplane that showed what could be achieved with a well packaged radial was the Mitsubishi A6M Zero.
Gassing Station | Boats, Planes & Trains | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff