Aircrews the wrong size?

[Blackdog_kt]

I think it's a combination of different facts that create this impression. After the explanations given in the latest update i believe the size is accurate.

First of all, aircrew inside bombers seem just right and correctly to scale.

Second, people who have read history books/wartime memoirs from pilots stated that all too often a piece of text desscribes how the pilots lowered their adjustable seats before entering combat, in order to align their line of sight with the gunsights but also in order to have more of their body encase within the harder parts of the airframe (the fuselage) and not sticking out at the height of the vulnerable canopy. In fact, there have been documented cases of pilots ducking as low as they could during straffing runs, in order to protect themselves by placing as much of their body as possible behind the engine.

Third, in this weeks update thread a wartime photo has been posted showing a pilot's head extending even above the open canopy. He couldn't have flown in that position, so his seat is either set high, he's standing semi-upright in the cockpit, he's taller than usual or a combination of the above. There was also a real-life photo posted from one of the members where his nephes sits inside a restored hurricane. The guys is said to be 6 feet tall and his head barely extends above the side walls of the cockpit.

Combining all these, it's my assumption that pilots generally adjusted their seats high for taxi and take off to help with visibility, maybe leaving it there during cruise as well to help with situational awareness and visibility during formation flying.
These planes were not only taildraggers, but many of them also had massive cowlings compared to light and general aviation planes that people fly today. I guess that if you need to lift yourself from the seat during taxi to maintain visibility in a piper cub, you'd need to lift the entire seat a couple of notches in a spitfire or 109 since they sport a much longer cowling.
During combat, they lowered their seats to keep their body protected and align their heads with the gunsight.

If this is correct, then the reason that most modern photos from airshow and restored warbirds show pilots on the high position is simple...they don't need to keep their eyes on the gunsight and nobody's going to shoot at them, so they opt to adjust the seat to a high position for better visibility and they seem bigger as a result

[Splitter]

Blackdog is on it from the things I know and/or have read in other resources in the past. This is all much ado about nothing I think.

BTW, there is also an option in IL-2 to "sit up" higher for taxiing if the canopy is open so I am sure these things were researched by the development team before.

Splitter

[Rodolphe]

...


Love the way we could ascend the Throne.




...

[PeterPanPan]

Here's a pic I took of the Suttleworth Hurricane last year, just getting airborne. It shows the pilot's position pretty well I think.



PPanPan

[Rodolphe]

...



A close formation of N°56 squadron Hurricanes Mk.I during 1939 or early 1940.

Pilots of Hurricanes, "E for Edward" and "H for Harry", have a rather low seat position in comparison with the pilot of "A for Ace".








Another exemple with N°1 Squadron Hurricanes Mk.IIC formation here with open canopies.








Seat and Mounting, Spitfire V Manual (A.P.1565E)

The handle moves between two quadrants attached to the seat and engages in any one of six notches in the quadrant to lock the seat in the desired position. The total adjustment of the seat is 4 in.

Hurricane AE977 seat mechanism




...

[kendo65]

Thanks Rodolphe. Seems the 'height' issue anyway has been definitively settled.

That first pic of the Hurricanes is pretty good, by the way.