A pilot compares cockpits between the Spitfire and the 109
 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kFj8N...eature=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-9YVe...eature=related




Miserable sod seems to complain about them both!!

Yahhh.....Gadzook's...old Boy...." does my Hair Gell look ok on Camera ?".......

Me109 is flawed....."cant see out this cramped heavy canopy"...........History say's otherwise.......:rolleyes:

Erich Heartman......... 352 Kills.
Gerhard Barkhurn ......301 Kills
Gunther Rall..............275 Kills
Wilhelm Batz.............237 Kills
Heinrich Ehler............209 Kills
Walter Chuck.............206 Kills
Walter Krupinski.........197 Kills

My Favourite...Johannes "Macky" Steinhoff...176 Kills....on his own...lone Hunter ....


So Mr Presenter...sorry your Hair Gell did not look good TV....but Great men are Born of History....Lesser Men count the cost after they have Fallen....

Shall I start will Spitfire Ace's.....? .........

some People do not know how lucky they are......tut...tut...tut..:confused:

He seemed to be comparing them to modern fighters!! Strange man.

I must admit the 109 did look rather cramped though, and the canopy would be an issue. His reviews did seem rather flawed.

He may be a pilot but he's got no idea what he's talking about!!


Next time im at the battle of britain museum in kent im going to ask if i can sit in the Spit/Hurricane/109 and i'll write up my own review haha.

I got to throw this in there. The reason you see such high kill numbers with German pilots is no rotation you fly till you die! It tends to make you want to be very good at what you do lol I'm no pilot but I like 109's personally

thx 4 posting the vids. :grin::grin::grin:

i dont know...gunther rall pretty much said the 109 was cramped and the viz wasnt the best.

Nice vids Foz, thanks for posting.
Just about every interview with a German ace that I've ever seen had the same 2 complaints about the 109:

1) It's narrow track under carriage caused more fatalaties than the enemy and
2) It's tiny cockpit had very poor visibility.

This doesn't mean that it wasn't an outstanding fighter for its day, just that it had it's flaws.

yes the guy went on a bit but was intresting

:-)

Cool vids, although neither was every built for comfort and I doubt was even on the list of considerations when they were being built. The 'crampedness' of the 109 was something we all noticed at Duxford last year when the 109 was lined up with the spits. As he says in the video though trying to open the canopy sideways on the 109 to get out I can see as being a reason why so many failed to get out.
As has been said he seems to compare technologies that are 70 years apart and as such are likely to be completely different. I've sat in F53 lightning and that was really cramped for a 60's fighter- so much so that if I'd have flown them and had to eject I would have chopped my legs off just above the knees!! Same goes for the Vulcan- for such a large aircraft the cockpit is extremely tight and I'd hate to think what it would be like in a full dome and flying suit! They're all war planes at the end of the day designed to do one specific job.

Regarding the 109's canopy, as far as I know it did have an emergency release mechanism that would eject it in case you needed to get out fast. However this would most likely not have helped you in an unexpected take off or landing accident which the aircraft was so prone of due to its narrow undercarriage, in case the aircraft flipped upside down. You'd be trapped.

MAC