Friday 2010-09-03 Dev. update and Discussions

[peterwoods@supanet.com]

Forget how tall the pilot is. It is the headsize (with or without helmet) that is so wrong.

Compare this upscaled version with the original. This is far from perfect but should serve to illustrate what many are saying. And, for Luthier, the pilot's eyeline is pretty well centred on the the reflector sight.

[AdMan]

Originally Posted by peterwoods@supanet.com

Forget how tall the pilot is. It is the headsize (with or without helmet) that is so wrong.

Compare this upscaled version with the original. This is far from perfect but should serve to illustrate what many are saying. And, for Luthier, the pilot's eyeline is pretty well centred on the the reflector sight.

very nice, looks much better

[Jimko]

First, great update pictures! Thanks Luthier!

Next…Does the pilot look a bit small to me in Luthier’s picture? Yes…

Is this a great issue for me? No…but I would prefer him to be a bit larger or higher.

I have seen many pictures and photos of pilots in Spits and Hurriys, and with no offense to Luthier, many of them had their eyes above the gunsight and they would stoop forward and down when using the sight.

I have read many biographies of BoB pilots and some of them were 6’ 4” tall, so even with lowered seats, their heads could be almost touching the canopy. Others flew with raised or lowered seats, depending on their preferences.

Here are a couple of pics, the first is Stanford Tuck in his Hurry, and the second is from the war. They give some good idea of pilot scale. Notice that their line-of-sight is just above the gunsight, but leaning foreward a bit would put their eyes a bit lower and in line with the sight. I have better pictures, but I would have to dig them out and scan them and no time for that project right now.

Is this an issue that is life-changing for me?

I hardly think so, but I think that it’s fair to present ideas and different opinions in a courteous and tactful manner.