As an eleven-year-old, during a trip to an aircraft museum I was allowed to sit inside the cockpit of a Bf 109. What I remember most from that experience is that even at my young age, it felt very cramped, and I remember wondering how on earth adults managed to fit in there.
Several years back an old Army buddy of mine bought a MIG-23 Flogger, never one to turn down an opportunity for a motorcycle road trip I immediately hopped on one of my bikes as soon as he told me about it and beat feet from Pa to Amarillo Tx to check it out. I was absolutely amazed that an aircraft of that size has a cockpit that cramped, I was just in blue jeans, a T-shirt, my boots and a ball cap and it was tight, I couldn't imagine having a flight suit and helmet on in that thing especially for a couple hours, after sitting in that thing I now understand why you hear all the stories about broken bones from guy's who've ejected from jets, when you sit in that thing each one of your legs basically goes up through a tunnel to where the rudder pedal is for that foot, I don't understand how you could eject without your legs getting chopped off. Bit here's the best one for you, P51's had notoriously tight cockpits like the 109 did, remember William Conrad? The rather rotund actor who played the private detective Frank Cannon in the 70's TV show Cannon, he was a P51 pilot in WW2, as soon as I read that I felt sorry for his crew chief having to stuff him down inside of those things, he must have gotten him in those things with a shoehorn.
@@dukecraig2402 He probably wasn't as rotund as he was in Cannon as he was older. People's body sizes change with age , the older you get, the more weight you carry due to inactivity.
@@pvtjohntowle4081 Oh I'm sure he wasn't nearly as portly as he was in his Cannon days, he couldn't have been in the military for medical reasons, it's just funny though the thought of some poor crew chief trying to stuff Frank Cannon down inside the cockpit of a P51. I'll tell you what though, just the other day I watched the 1946 movie The Killers, Conrad plays one of the hitmen in it and he ain't exactly small then, and that's just a year after the war was over, I also have a suspicion that he got to big during the war to get in a P51 after a certain point because if you look up his service, it shows two things, P51 pilot and being a part of the Arned Force's Radio Service. He'd just started in radio in LA shortly before going into the service, in 43 he was commissioned as a flight officer, but by the end of the war he was working in Armed Forces Radio so maybe he got too big at one point to fit into fighter's and given his background in radio they had him fall back on that. Either way it really doesn't matter to me, he'll always be Frank Cannon to me, the cool dude that drove around in great big Lincoln's that had phones in them.
A confounding variable here is that two 190cm people are not the same. Not along can they be fatter or thinner, but they can have shorter or longer arms and legs relative to the rest of their body. So it's quite possible that Chris' specific traits just make him specifically ill-suited to being a 109 pilot.
Can attest to that. I am only 187cm tall, and there are instances where people taller than me have fewer problems sitting in a car than i have. (I have a longer torso and shorter legs compared to others of my size). And i remember when Ayrton Senna and Gerhard Berger were teammates in F1, they were said to have been equaly tall, but could not drive in each others cockpit. One of them had longer legs and a shorter torso, the other one was the opposite.
Yes, I and most people in my family have long torsos and shorter legs as well. Really annoying finding shirts that fit well. For example, large shirts often fit better length wise but are too baggy. Medium shirts fit well but are too short.
The problem here was both long upper body (head hitting the canopy) and long legs (no room for the stick), so I see no way out of the problem by distributing the length in any other way.
@@chickenfishhybrid44 I'm the opposite, tiny torso and long legs. I'm only 6ft, but many cars don't let me move the seat back far enough to be comfortable, and I often move the seat all the way back but also all the way up.
What an honor! Great video, thanks Chris. In his book Galland talked not so much of 'getting into' the Bf-109 as 'putting it on', as though it was a coat. I can see what he means, I can see how some pilots have complained about how difficult it was (how much effort was needed) to roll the aircraft. It seems the stick has very little lateral travel between the pilot's thighs. I recall that the Spitfire had a stick that looked like it traveled fore and aft with a circular yoke on top for roll. I wonder if that would have significantly improved roll maneuverability with the Bf-109's high wing loading? Galland mentioned that most of them had no rudder trim tab (and easy addition) and the pilot had to keep the aircraft on course by always applying pressure with one foot. Although it seems you found it comfortable (without a parachute and bending your head down a little) I get the feeling that for Willi Messerschmitt, pilot comfort was not a primary concern. Wonder how I can somehow scheme my way to the Messerschmitt Stiftung? How do I convince the wife....
wrote: "I can see how some pilots have complained about how difficult it was (how much effort was needed) to roll the aircraft. It seems the stick has very little lateral travel between the pilot's thighs. I recall that the Spitfire had a stick that looked like it traveled fore and aft with a circular yoke on top for roll. I wonder if that would have significantly improved roll maneuverability with the Bf-109's high wing loading?" -- How well aircraft roll is affected by size of control surface, and whether control surface balanced(statically(by weights) or dynamically(aerodynamic surfaced called Spades)), how big the wing is(Me-109 is a lot smaller, then a Spitfire), and how close weight to center line are(it called buttock line), which in case of Me-109 wing was nearly empty(occasionally spoiled by hanging extra MG). In case of Spitfire, it got either battery of eight Browning MGs, or mix of MGs and 20mm Hispano canons, and that will greatly effect roll controllability of the aircraft. As for circular "O" on the top of the stick, yes, it meant to keep both hands on stick for controllability while pulling Gs, but not much for roll assistance.
@@RussianThunderrrLast time I checked how much stick travel is actually available compared to the travel it was designed with, could actually significantly hamper roll performance. If someone is only able to throw the stick 50 percent sideways, he’s likely to roll slower than a pilot that’s able to make use of the full 100 percent.😉
@@martijn9568 wrote: "Last time I checked how much stick travel is actually available compared to the travel it was designed with, could actually significantly hamper roll performance. If someone is only able to throw the stick 50 percent sideways, he’s likely to roll slower than a pilot that’s able to make use of the full 100 percent." -- Bf-109 rolls faster with just elevator and rudder, once you get up to a speed, with controllability to 1/4 turn in a flick roll. And that is the reason, why Bf-109 won competition from He-112, never mind Arado and Focke Wulf, despite personal animosity from RLM minister Erhard Milch to William Messerschmitt. Having said that, You - would not make a cut to fly Bf-109, if your body is physically obstructing primary controls. It's not a bug, it's a feature of William Messerschmitt design of Bf-109.
I remember reading once about a pilot who got a chance to fly in the 109 and I remember him specifically saying that Adolf Galland was absolutely correct when he said you don't sit in a 109, you wear it. In that same article the pilot also mentions something to the effect of once you get used to how it feels you actually find it helpful because you become "one" with the aircraft.
Interesting, Tibor Tobak, who was very tall, described it similarly: "my knees almost hit my nose, but I loved this cramped cabin - you could become one with the machine."
I remember a video I saw, some years ago, of a former Allied pilot, climbing into the cockpit of a 109 at an airshow, the first time he'd seen one since 1944. When asked what he thought of the cockpit size, layout, and visibility, he answered "if I'd known, I'd have been more aggressive."
I saw something similar where they put a modern fighter pilot into the cockpit of a Spitfire, and he rated it as not great, a little cramped, some of the controls weren’t ideally situated, and the visibility was a bit restricted, then they put him in a 109 cockpit and his reaction was basically “Gawd this is awful!”
@@rachelpurity1 German pilots were so successful that by the end of the war they were dominated by the allies who had free reight to bomb all their cities!
There was a Bf-109 being restored at the Mojave, CA airport some 15 yrs ago. It had participated in the Battle of Britain according to a local news article. I went to see it and was amazed at how small it was, especially compared to a Hellcat and P-38 that were also in stages of restoration in the same hanger. At 5'11" with a large build, I remember thinking to myself that there was no way my shoulders could have squeezed into that tiny cockpit.
I was fortunate enough to sit in the 109e that was being restored at Duxford a few years ago. I was amazed at how comfortable it felt and how everything fell to hand, perfect really. Maybe I was just lucky to fit!
The legendary spitfire pilot, the late Paul Day, tried out the cockpit of 'Black 6' and found it even more of a squeeze than his usual mount. He noted there wasn't much room in a spitfire but the 109 was much worse.
Yes, I think you might be referring to the excellent Equinox documentary of a few years ago concerning the misconceptions about the Battle of Britain and comparisons of the Spitfire, Hurricane and Bf 109. Some great original film clips, including one of Werner Molders in the cockpit that shows the cramped space and relatively poor visibility for a pilot. I loved the low level Spitfire clip accompanied by Edgar’s music.
Thanks, Chris, (and cameraman!) for this detailed insight and sharing your impressions of this iconic machine! My granddad flew many German WW2 aircraft for evaluation etc. and I always think of him when seeing one of these planes. I bet if you continue with the ITC series, one day you will have sat in every type my granddad did, and I really am thankful to you for giving me an opportunity to do so, too, by watching your videos!
I read something about a Bf-109 pilot test flying the rather large P-47, and not liking it becausse he actually had to reach out for the controls. When you think of it, it would be nice to have all your controlls close to you when you are dealing with G forces.
When the US Eagle Squadrons transferred from their beloved Spitfire to the huge P'47 -Thunderbolts they felt exactly the same. You strapped on a Spitfire as if it were a part of you, while in the extremely roomy "Jug" cockpit it felt like if you fell from the seat you'll break a leg. Not exactly a "fun" fact, in mock dogfights the P'47s fell from the sky like leaves, not being able to follow the much more versatile and maneuverable Spitfires. They eventually were banned from getting into dogfights below 8 000 feet. As one of the pilots said, the ideal fighting combination was a Yank in a Spitfire.
About people feeling ok in snug places. There was this movie (a biopic) called "Temple Grandin". It's about a lady that is autistic but still managed to become an academic and ethologist. She did research something similiar: she did an experiment once with other students where they were put into a "machine" she inevented that "hugged" them closely. And then asked the probants how they feel, and noted that. She figured out that most did not feel claustrophobic when this happened at the shoulders and sides but the head and hands and feet were kind of free. She used that for cattle that has to be moved into slaughter houses to make that more unstressing for the kettle and reduce injuries and problems. So back from the off topic: i think that's why many have no problem with snug cockpits. (edit: misspelled word)
I once read about a Dutch pilot saying something along the lines of "You wore the Spitfire like a suit", which he preferred to the Meteor's apparently more roomy cockpit.
@@DABrock-author -- There are whole bunch of those jokes from American pilots who flew Spitfires, and then been forced to fly P-47s, not a bad deal... But my favorite from one of 'em pilot jokes: -- As I'm getting into my "bottomless" Jug(P-47), I was afraid to miss the seat, and fall through my airplane and break a neck...
@@DruidTimer -- Yeah, P-47, P-51 Mustang and P-38 Lightning, just for looks get a soft spot in my heart, never mind all remarkable aircraft, all are Giants when it comes to size. In voice of US president #45 - they are "Huge"! IDK about Bf-109 though... it was one of the most dangerous Axis fighters, if notorious, and 109-phobia was a real thing, during WWII among Allied pilots, just like Tiger tank phobia on the ground. While FW-190 was a German P-47 Jug... except it preferred four 20mm "artillery" guns, in addition two 51cal. MGs.
@@DABrock-author The English pilot 'Ginger' Lacy made that comment; specifically in reference to the 'Jug's somewhat lethargic turn and climb (as compared with his Spitfire)
I sat inside the 109 Gustav that was formerly at the Evergreen aviation museum in McMinnville, Oregon. I am 5'10 and I was already claustrophobic after one minute inside. Never meet your heroes, they will always disappoint you. Still a beautiful plane. Great video!
And just for a little nightmare fuel.... Imagine you're in that cockpit. There's holes blown through all over your plane, you're on fire, you're fighting with the controls to try and keep it as straight and level as you can AND you gotta try and get out of the cockpit so you can bail out safely.
I've read accounts of German pilots being shot down. They would jettison the canopy, unbuckle the straps and then roll the aircraft inverted, so as to fall out.
Remember reading the Biography of Robert Stanford Tuck a British fighter pilot during WW2. In it he was given the opportunity to fly a captured 109. He felt it was a little claustrophobic , with the canopy closed being that the canopy had all of those bars and girders, he also noted that vison in some quarters was restricted by the same...
@@fastica The data includes people from Asian countries that have naturally smaller men and who exist in large numbers and at all ages, with older men being shorter. I am 175cm tall and I am shorter than the vast majority where I live here in Brazil.
Chris - Overall height of the pilot is not the most critical measurement for fitting into a cockpit. The critical dimension is the sitting height of the pilot, especially for aircraft with ejection seats. My brother was a 20-year US Navy pilot and flew P3's because his sitting height was too tall for any of the ejection seat fitted fighter aircraft the US Navy was flying at the time. The measurement is critical because the top of the pilot's helmet must be below the top of the ejection seat when the pilot is fully kitted out and seated in the plane. Thanks again for another interesting segment.
Exactly, as fighter pilots, tank crews, etc. are picked because they will fit the machine. Also the US Navy likes to have an extra large mechanic as well as a tiny mechanic for each of their ships...
This is my favorite aircraft since i was kid , i have the 1/48 model of this aircraft in many version , B-1 , E-3 , E-4 , F-2 , G-2 , G-6 , G-10 , G-14 , K-4 and K-14 (the last version with four blades propeller , i scratchbuilt this from K-4 kit)
The Czech 109 (Avia -199) had a fat bubble canopy without the jail bar effect after the war. The 109 was at its design limits by 1944...it was jet and rocket plane era.
Your team does a great job sir. For sure we weren't as big then as now. I did often wonder about the 109 cockpit. I am the educator at THE SOUTHERN MUSEUM OF FLIGHT in BIRMINGHAM, Alabama. THANKS MUCH.
Being "only" 5'6" myself, and never reaching any weight over 140lbs, I've always been quite comfortable in smaller spaces, in fact I'd probably have preferred the constricted dimensions of the Bf 109 because having the aircraft wrapped so tightly around my body would enable me to see more around me outside of the aircraft while not compromising what I needed to see inside the cockpit. (I conclude this assessment by comparison of driving a small sports car vs. a large van or the like.) Plus, in my lifetime, experience has taught me that a small person can get into small and big spaces, but a big person can only get into big spaces. This sentiment can be transferred to aircraft which would see this as a benefit if, for example, they were having to weave in between formations of heavy bombers.
Well, there was more room in a Defiant’s turret! I remember reading “The First and The Last” where Galland said, “you didn’t climb into a 109’s cockpit, you strapped the aircraft on”. Wasn’t the idea of the 109 to create a a highly manoeuvrable and smallest airframe around the most powerful engine available?
I'm very happy to be 1m75 tall and absolutely not claustrophobic. I am French but I am in Germany for study... I hope I will have an opportunity to go to the Messerschmitt Museum to jump inside the cockpit of the BF109 ! I love aviation so let's dream about that !
@@gsm2424 if you reduce the French military to the 1940 northern campain, you also do not have the privilege (french word) to sit in the 109. first of all because it's dumb to reduce a whole country to some month of his history second because the French have proven their value many time during ww2 and third because also in the 1940 northern campain french soldiers have proven their bravory and hability to fight ( for exemple Dunkirk without the last stand of the french the english were destroy be the german) and it's the high command who failed
Many years ago I had the opportunity to sit inside both a ME-262 and a P-47. What a difference! I'm 6'3". I could not get into the Messerschmidt past my hips. The Thunderbolt was no problem, actually quite roomy.
I was privileged to tour " Sentimental Journey". A B17 from the Confederate Air Force. It landed in Baker City Oregon and we spotted it flying as we were on vacation. It was tight inside as Im only 5'9". Hats off to the crews and the Greatest Generation!
My understanding is that the seat in the 109 can be adjusted to three positions, but it can only be done on the ground! Former 109G-2 'Black 6' pilot Dave Southwood was over 6 ft tall IIRC, as was the late Mark Hanna who flew both the Buchon and the then Hans Dittes Buchon G-10 conversion now with the Messerschmitt Museum. I remember Mark mentioning in an article that the Charles Church Buchon had a slight bulge in the top canopy perspex that was helpful in giving a bit more headroom for taller pilots. Anyway, thanks for the video!
"Wings of the Luftwaffe", page 154, 109G-2 cockpit drawing, item 3: "Seat height adjustment handle". (Pardon the repetition if it's already been posted).
This is awesome. The 109 was the first aircraft I learned to fly in IL2 and very often my go to plane when picking up the sim after some time off. I found this very interesting!
this is a great video to demonstrate why some WW2 fighters roll rates were deceptive from what they could do on paper vs in combat. If the controls got stiff from high speed and it took great force to roll the plane, you could get greater leverage if you had more room. In a roomy plane like the P-47, you could probably apply much greater stick force than a tight plane like the BF-109. So even though for the same stick force one might roll faster than the other, in reality stick force would vary from pilot to pilot and from plane to plane. Supposedly, Japanese Zero pilots had what we would call a "breaker bar" that they would slide over the flight stick, extending it for leverage so they could apply extra force to help pull out of steep and fast dives when the controls were very stiff
I have been in a Spitfire and although not too much of a problem at 5' 10'' in terms of height, my rather wide shoulders were almost touching the cockpit sides and that was wearing a shirt not an Irvin Jacket or anything else bulky. As the WW2 pilots would say, 'you didn't fly these aircraft, you wore them!'.
Fine video! A few years ago I saw a Bf-109 in a museum (Reptár) here in Hungary. The fighter displayed temporary at the museum (just a few month). It has really tight cockpit. It is not recommended who has cloaustrophobia 🙂
I’m the same height. That would have been my excuse too: “Fight in a fighter plane? No sorry…too tall. I’m the prefect height for an office job in the Pay Corps….🤓”
109's are SMALL, and it was built like that to be light and agile. But it was also built to fit an "average" man, which was, and still is ~180cm tall for northern europeans. We also shouldnt forget that the 109 is a plane that first flew in early 1935, so the actual design is from the first half of the 30's, which is just INSANE to think about, as it kept 85% of the airframe untouched thru out all of its different versions, most of the parts that were changed were obviously enginemounts, cowlings and parts of the wings. But mainly it was so ahead of its time, and good performing platform (yes i know that Messerschmitt sadly was favoured by Göring, which hindered alot of German airengineering in the later half of the war) that it stayed almost the same until the end, and also after the war (licensed built copies for spain, south america etc.)
"It kept 85% of the airframe untouched thru out all of its different versions. . . ." That is hard to believe, considering just the change from E-models to F-models. No surface panels were the same, and the fuselage construction was certainly different as it no longer had struts for the horizontal tail. The underwing radiators were a different size and shape. The wingtips were a different shape. The canopy was the same as late E-models, but early Es and all earlier versions had a completely different canopy. I'm sure that I'm forgetting a lot.
Roald Dahl was 198 cm tall and actually flew the Spitfire during WW II. It was definitely not a pleasant experience for him. Keep in mind, you're sitting on the parachute, too.
@@theonlymadmac4771 You're right. Though I disintictly remember him describing how he, after a long flight to Greece, I think, basically had to be lifted out of the cockpit after arriving. Even the Hurricane simply wasn't designed to fit a man of his frame.
Didn't both the Hurricane and Spitfire also have the advantage of the control column only pivoting at the top of the column for roll? It meant that if you had long legs, they were less likely to get in the way, as we see here with a standard joystick.
(*Laughs in 1.75 meters tall.) Never sat in a 109. But I will tell you, the Mirage III I sat in felt like a matchbox once you closed the canopy. Grear little snippet of a video, Chris. And cheers to the cameraman. He could fly Cr.42s and Macchis and feel right at home.
Fascinating stuff. These guys weren't even fully equipped to take off for a mission. Imagine wearing a helmet, sheepskin jacket, warm boots, thick gloves, a Mae West and sitting in a parachute. Very intimate indeed.
More room than a lot of tanks. At 190 myself, working on a churchill, grant and stuart, they are very cramped to be in. The worst is a blitz truck, absolutely impossible to drive, even as a passenger you can barely fit.
The canopy with wide frames was introduced on the 109E and clever pilots kept the thinner framed one from the E-1. That's also why the Erla Haube was introduced on the later G model.
As with MrRobert... I had the same observations a young lad in the early-mid 1970s. At the time, there was what could best be described as a warbird junkyard located near Chicago in the farm areas by Lake Zurich. I was about 7 when we first discovered it in a class field trip. The owner had set it up as a "museum." basically you paid and walked around completely unsupervised. Each time you went the museum would change, but there were a few staples. A B25 without engines. An A-26 night intruder in ANG markings that looked complete but probably wasn't certified. A real baka bomb. The middle half a civilian luxury conversion PBY that was wrecked in a great lakes storm (that you could walk through). A fully flying Texan. The front cockpit area from an HS129 (I saw an article later where this was an extremely rare artifact.) Various Lockheed Electra's and Beech 18s. At various time 3/4 of an F6F (the one now at Chino restored) the P-47M that's still around. a P51 cockpit. And one time several crated Spitfires from the Battle of Britain movie in a shed. To get back to the point, there were 3 Buchon's from the Battle of Britain movie in about 80-90% condition each every time I went. I was already a WWII nerd and had seen the movie and I remember noticing how much smaller they were than I had imagined. As noted, the owner didn't care or monitor what you did so my dad picked me up one time and let me walk up to the cockpit and even as a little kid I thought "Man, that's small!"
Hallo Ich habe bei einem Besuch in Laatzen bei Hannover einen der Museumsinhaber gefragt wie denn große Piloten das gemacht haben, die es ja auch vereinzelt gab. Dort wurde mir gesagt das für diese Flieger der Tank unterm Sitz ausgebaut oder versetzt wurde.
I’m not surprised that it is small for a tall person. Apparently the Spitfire cockpit was built with a pilot who was 5 foot 8 inches ( approximately 173 cm) high. I suspect that would be the same for the 109.
I wonder the with foreknowledge of obvious pilot complaints coming after the introduction of the Bf-109 that when Kurt Tank went to design a competitor/ alternative aircraft to the Messerschmidt he just might have said: " So what is the first and most obvious way I can create a 'better" plane than the 109 ?" The answer was easy...make the cockpit as Pilot Friendly as possible and he sure did as the FW-190 has a great cockpit layout and design. Just watch Gregs Airplanes and Automobiles FW cockpit video and you'll see his opinion.
Sitting in the back, jump seat of a Frontier pickup was interesting. One faces inwards, with your back to the wall. When the front passenger moved her seat forwards (to give me more space), I rattled around too much with each stop and start. Whilst slightly claustrophobic, it was WAY more comfortable to have the seat in front of me scoot back, just till all the empty space was gone, but not a tight fit. Much more comfortable. And claustrophobic. Did I mention claustrophobic?
I'm 1.9m as well, and I've sat in the Bf109, FW190, F18, Spitfire, Yak 3, Macchi MB326, Mirage F1 and a few others (no head issues in a Tiger Moth, which I actually got to fly as well!) My overriding impression is that they're all either small or snug, but not impossible to manage. The single biggest issue I encounter every time is when closing the canopy - head clearance is the problem, exactly as you had in this video. Add a helmet and parachute, and it becomes impossible to move your head and look around properly. The later aircraft had seat vertical adjustment at least, but the earlier ones do not, and whilst I could probably *fly* one if forced to, actually fighting in one would be a disaster.
There was a German ace of the Western front whose name I can't recall that began his combat career flying FW-190s in 1943. He was wounded and was out of action for almost a year and was reassigned to a JG that flew ME-109s. He was not happy at all with it and actually referred to it as a "shitbox".
Spoke with a RAF Spitfire pilot 40 years ago that got a chance to sit in a crashed 109 and he said it was similar to a Spitfire in regard to cockpit size. His comment was you strapped the Spitfire to you and he wasn’t a tall man either, about 5’ 9”.
Awesome! In the early 90s I attended a Subsonic Aeronautics Testing Association (SATA) conference in Baden-Baden. Afterwards, my mother-in-law (who was born in Germany) made arrangements for me to spend a few days with my wife's Great Aunt and Uncle (Max and Kati Wagner), in Augsburg. They were beautiful and nice people. Max was an BF-109 test pilot for Messerschmitt during World War II. I feel blessed to have had the opportunity to get to know these wonderful people.
One thing ive come to appreciate about being 5'7" is that it means im able to fit with some ease through old museum ships. Getting through a submarine bulkhead can be less than pleasant for tall guys.
was lucky enough to be able to sit in the cockpits of the Me 109 .. the FW 190A and Spit 14 during a private visit to the Laatzen museum (Hannover) Also measuring 1.70 M ... no problem .. but indeed the cockpit of the 109 is the smallest of the three ... the Spit being the most spacious My favorite is the cockpit of the 190!Nowit's to try this with the full flying gear ... that can be a other experience !
Would it have been possible to fit a bubble canopy on the Bf 109 back in World War II? Over thirty years ago, my family and I visited an airshow at Eindhoven Airbase. Featured on the program were the Italian Frecce Tricolore. There were also many vintage World War II era fighters and planes. At one point, two Italian pilots walked by and I was amazed how short they were. They were like 1.65 m at most.
A 195 cm guy with a flying suit/jacket, airman's helmet and maybe a parachute is not going to fit at all, even if he flies with his neck bent all the time. It's really something to see a Bf 109 cockpit for real at leisure.
Thank you for another wonderful video. Considering the mad maneuvering that gangs of terrified and vengeful 'twenty-somethings' hurling about the air bent on homicide might perpetrate, I suspect it was some comfort to be in the embrace of a snug cockpit.
When I was a teen, I was looking to enter the RAF. At 168cm they were already earmarking me for Harrier Jump Jets, due to my size, as long as I made it through training. However, a medical issue halted me even getting anywhere.
You left out a very important detail: due to the DB inverted Vee-engine configuration the level of noise intrusion- and hence, pilot fatigue - is much less than compared with a Buchon
Josh is a hoot! He could do standup... I remember seeing an interview with an Mustang pilot who, after the war, got the chance to sit in a 109. He said if he'd known how poor visibility was from its cockpit he would have been much more aggressive with them.
@5:49 that looks like he is sitting in the Merlin powered Ha-1112 built after the war (note the exhaust stacks near the top of the cowling). Is this the plane he is regularly flying? Perhaps they made some changes to the cockpit seating with the Ha-1112?
My 15-year old daughter is a freshman at the Central Florida Aerospace Academy. At 5’2”/157cm we have found the perfect solo plane for her. Vielen Dank.
Eric Brown said in wings of the Luftwaffe that the 109G controls were not very well harmonized, comparing the elevator to ailerons. I wonder if that could be due to less space being availabe for the ailieron axis?
Some years ago a B-17 (Nine O Nine, actually), a B-24 and an Allison engined 109 flew into a small regional airport and I went to see these machines in person. The 109 was legit aft of the engine compartment and that cockpit was TINY! Not just for tall pilots, also for pilots with broad shoulders. It was originally an E airframe, but even looking in it was obvious how tight a fit it was for anybody taller than about 5’9.” The later Galland Haube had better visibility, that armor glass had to make it just as snug if not more so. Visibility with the flat plate canopies was just barely adequate. I’m 6’2” and about 240, so there was no way I could even come close to fitting in the 109. Still a very potent and dangerous machine, though. I read about a restoration of a G-14 and the data plate of the engine dated it to December, 1944. It was torn down for a rebuild and the parts were measured against the blue prints, and they were all bang in the middle of very tight tolerances. Amazing German industry could still produce an engine of that quality so late in the war.
I've seen one of these and it's the most compact fighter I have ever seen during that period. The German war industry was not what people think it was and they had to build these fighters on the cheap and they had to build a lot of them. You could literally say that this is the StuG III, Sherman, T34 of fighter planes. And the fact that they were able to modify it so much to keep up, making it a viable threat up until the end of the German phase of the war, is a testament to its design and the skill of German aviation engineers.
I remember seeing a British Pilot, flying The Memorial Planes, trying to sit in a 109 with his Gear and complaining that he had difficulty in sitting in one, even though being a rather short guy! Finn. Denmark
Tightness is one thing, but visibility also affects the sense of claustrophobia. The 109 has heavy framing and small-ish glass panels for its cockpit. This was the norm around 1940, but by the end of the war all the latest allied fighters in Europe were using some sort of bubble canopy. A Spitfire MK24 would have felt more spacious than a 109G just from the canopy alone. I suspect a 109 with the Galland Hood would feel less cramped, even if the physical space available to the pilot was the same.
Once touring the USAF museum in Dayton Ohio I commented to a curator there about the size of cockpit on some of the aircraft. He responded “you must remember that in 1943 the average weight of a recruit was 138lbs and wore a size 36 coat”
Now try it in a full pilot uniform and parachute. The seat had three vertical positions so it could be lowered until it was flat to the floor. the rudder pedals had two feet positions.
I once sat in Hangar10‘s static G-14. I am 1.76 m tall, and found it to be a quite perfect fit (though with a cushion instead of the seat parachute. In fact I thought it to be quite comfortable compared to several older (wooden) gliders I used to fly. Though it was not the perfect seating position, as my right knee contacted the lower right edge of the instrument panel. This could have been altered by a different location of pedals and / or seat pan. Overall it felt quite like a nice working place for a pilot.
Plus flying helmet and a parachute in a heavy flying jacket (because it gets cold at altitude) I think they would suggest you try an FW190 for size instead, more room.
Oh bugger, the plane is on fire!
Beat me to it.😁
😂
is this a Squire joke?
@@dahshendrick2566 I think that’s a Inside the Chieftain’s Hatch Reference
@@kyledorsty906 thank you, never heard of it/him. im going to search that up
“It’s a plane” - A Cameraman
professional impression
@@yoyodada230 I honestly would have never guessed it was a plane, I’m so glad we have qualified professionals in the world 🥹
Bismark. "Come here, get in".
Cameraman. "I'm in danger".
@@BeyondDictation yea, honestly thought it was a bird
Nailed it
Oh dear. He has gone full TheChieftain!
LOL
He hasn't gone _full_ The Chieftain until he does a "The tank- err, Plane Is On Fire!" test.
@Philistine47 (takes a drink of coffee ) Yup, fair point. Need a good show on the Savoia-Marchetti S.M. 79.
Turret monster not mentioned.... -10% TheChieftain.
Can't be full Chieftain without some track tensioning :D
As an eleven-year-old, during a trip to an aircraft museum I was allowed to sit inside the cockpit of a Bf 109. What I remember most from that experience is that even at my young age, it felt very cramped, and I remember wondering how on earth adults managed to fit in there.
Several years back an old Army buddy of mine bought a MIG-23 Flogger, never one to turn down an opportunity for a motorcycle road trip I immediately hopped on one of my bikes as soon as he told me about it and beat feet from Pa to Amarillo Tx to check it out.
I was absolutely amazed that an aircraft of that size has a cockpit that cramped, I was just in blue jeans, a T-shirt, my boots and a ball cap and it was tight, I couldn't imagine having a flight suit and helmet on in that thing especially for a couple hours, after sitting in that thing I now understand why you hear all the stories about broken bones from guy's who've ejected from jets, when you sit in that thing each one of your legs basically goes up through a tunnel to where the rudder pedal is for that foot, I don't understand how you could eject without your legs getting chopped off.
Bit here's the best one for you, P51's had notoriously tight cockpits like the 109 did, remember William Conrad? The rather rotund actor who played the private detective Frank Cannon in the 70's TV show Cannon, he was a P51 pilot in WW2, as soon as I read that I felt sorry for his crew chief having to stuff him down inside of those things, he must have gotten him in those things with a shoehorn.
@@dukecraig2402That's interesting. Was Mr. Conrad as husky back then?
@@dukecraig2402 He probably wasn't as rotund as he was in Cannon as he was older. People's body sizes change with age , the older you get, the more weight you carry due to inactivity.
@@pvtjohntowle4081
Oh I'm sure he wasn't nearly as portly as he was in his Cannon days, he couldn't have been in the military for medical reasons, it's just funny though the thought of some poor crew chief trying to stuff Frank Cannon down inside the cockpit of a P51.
I'll tell you what though, just the other day I watched the 1946 movie The Killers, Conrad plays one of the hitmen in it and he ain't exactly small then, and that's just a year after the war was over, I also have a suspicion that he got to big during the war to get in a P51 after a certain point because if you look up his service, it shows two things, P51 pilot and being a part of the Arned Force's Radio Service.
He'd just started in radio in LA shortly before going into the service, in 43 he was commissioned as a flight officer, but by the end of the war he was working in Armed Forces Radio so maybe he got too big at one point to fit into fighter's and given his background in radio they had him fall back on that.
Either way it really doesn't matter to me, he'll always be Frank Cannon to me, the cool dude that drove around in great big Lincoln's that had phones in them.
@@dukecraig2402 You pull your feet out of the footwell before ejecting.
A confounding variable here is that two 190cm people are not the same. Not along can they be fatter or thinner, but they can have shorter or longer arms and legs relative to the rest of their body. So it's quite possible that Chris' specific traits just make him specifically ill-suited to being a 109 pilot.
Can attest to that. I am only 187cm tall, and there are instances where people taller than me have fewer problems sitting in a car than i have. (I have a longer torso and shorter legs compared to others of my size).
And i remember when Ayrton Senna and Gerhard Berger were teammates in F1, they were said to have been equaly tall, but could not drive in each others cockpit. One of them had longer legs and a shorter torso, the other one was the opposite.
Yes, I and most people in my family have long torsos and shorter legs as well. Really annoying finding shirts that fit well. For example, large shirts often fit better length wise but are too baggy. Medium shirts fit well but are too short.
Wait the second 😂
1 month ago ?
The problem here was both long upper body (head hitting the canopy) and long legs (no room for the stick), so I see no way out of the problem by distributing the length in any other way.
@@chickenfishhybrid44 I'm the opposite, tiny torso and long legs. I'm only 6ft, but many cars don't let me move the seat back far enough to be comfortable, and I often move the seat all the way back but also all the way up.
What an honor! Great video, thanks Chris.
In his book Galland talked not so much of 'getting into' the Bf-109 as 'putting it on', as though it was a coat. I can see what he means,
I can see how some pilots have complained about how difficult it was (how much effort was needed) to roll the aircraft. It seems the stick has very little lateral travel between the pilot's thighs. I recall that the Spitfire had a stick that looked like it traveled fore and aft with a circular yoke on top for roll. I wonder if that would have significantly improved roll maneuverability with the Bf-109's high wing loading? Galland mentioned that most of them had no rudder trim tab (and easy addition) and the pilot had to keep the aircraft on course by always applying pressure with one foot. Although it seems you found it comfortable (without a parachute and bending your head down a little) I get the feeling that for Willi Messerschmitt, pilot comfort was not a primary concern.
Wonder how I can somehow scheme my way to the Messerschmitt Stiftung? How do I convince the wife....
wrote: "I can see how some pilots have complained about how difficult it was (how much effort was needed) to roll the aircraft. It seems the stick has very little lateral travel between the pilot's thighs. I recall that the Spitfire had a stick that looked like it traveled fore and aft with a circular yoke on top for roll. I wonder if that would have significantly improved roll maneuverability with the Bf-109's high wing loading?"
-- How well aircraft roll is affected by size of control surface, and whether control surface balanced(statically(by weights) or dynamically(aerodynamic surfaced called Spades)), how big the wing is(Me-109 is a lot smaller, then a Spitfire), and how close weight to center line are(it called buttock line), which in case of Me-109 wing was nearly empty(occasionally spoiled by hanging extra MG). In case of Spitfire, it got either battery of eight Browning MGs, or mix of MGs and 20mm Hispano canons, and that will greatly effect roll controllability of the aircraft. As for circular "O" on the top of the stick, yes, it meant to keep both hands on stick for controllability while pulling Gs, but not much for roll assistance.
@@RussianThunderrrLast time I checked how much stick travel is actually available compared to the travel it was designed with, could actually significantly hamper roll performance. If someone is only able to throw the stick 50 percent sideways, he’s likely to roll slower than a pilot that’s able to make use of the full 100 percent.😉
@@martijn9568 wrote: "Last time I checked how much stick travel is actually available compared to the travel it was designed with, could actually significantly hamper roll performance. If someone is only able to throw the stick 50 percent sideways, he’s likely to roll slower than a pilot that’s able to make use of the full 100 percent."
-- Bf-109 rolls faster with just elevator and rudder, once you get up to a speed, with controllability to 1/4 turn in a flick roll. And that is the reason, why Bf-109 won competition from He-112, never mind Arado and Focke Wulf, despite personal animosity from RLM minister Erhard Milch to William Messerschmitt. Having said that, You - would not make a cut to fly Bf-109, if your body is physically obstructing primary controls. It's not a bug, it's a feature of William Messerschmitt design of Bf-109.
The p-38 had a yoke
@@GonzoDonzo -- Yes, but yoke is slightly different, that a stick for two hands...
I remember reading once about a pilot who got a chance to fly in the 109 and I remember him specifically saying that Adolf Galland was absolutely correct when he said you don't sit in a 109, you wear it.
In that same article the pilot also mentions something to the effect of once you get used to how it feels you actually find it helpful because you become "one" with the aircraft.
Interesting, Tibor Tobak, who was very tall, described it similarly: "my knees almost hit my nose, but I loved this cramped cabin - you could become one with the machine."
A coffin is snug too.@@orszag572
Thanks! This provides a terrific take on the 109. I seems to be a very, very different experience than dodging around inside a Jug.
I remember a video I saw, some years ago, of a former Allied pilot, climbing into the cockpit of a 109 at an airshow, the first time he'd seen one since 1944. When asked what he thought of the cockpit size, layout, and visibility, he answered "if I'd known, I'd have been more aggressive."
I saw something similar where they put a modern fighter pilot into the cockpit of a Spitfire, and he rated it as not great, a little cramped, some of the controls weren’t ideally situated, and the visibility was a bit restricted, then they put him in a 109 cockpit and his reaction was basically “Gawd this is awful!”
@@donsample1002 I think I saw that. The guy really hated the poor visibility the pilot would have looking for enemy aircraft.
Keep that in mind next time you're faced with how successful German pilots were!
@@rachelpurity1 German pilots were so successful that by the end of the war they were dominated by the allies who had free reight to bomb all their cities!
There was a Bf-109 being restored at the Mojave, CA airport some 15 yrs ago. It had participated in the Battle of Britain according to a local news article. I went to see it and was amazed at how small it was, especially compared to a Hellcat and P-38 that were also in stages of restoration in the same hanger. At 5'11" with a large build, I remember thinking to myself that there was no way my shoulders could have squeezed into that tiny cockpit.
I was fortunate enough to sit in the 109e that was being restored at Duxford a few years ago. I was amazed at how comfortable it felt and how everything fell to hand, perfect really. Maybe I was just lucky to fit!
The legendary spitfire pilot, the late Paul Day, tried out the cockpit of 'Black 6' and found it even more of a squeeze than his usual mount. He noted there wasn't much room in a spitfire but the 109 was much worse.
Yes, I think you might be referring to the excellent Equinox documentary of a few years ago concerning the misconceptions about the Battle of Britain and comparisons of the Spitfire, Hurricane and Bf 109. Some great original film clips, including one of Werner Molders in the cockpit that shows the cramped space and relatively poor visibility for a pilot. I loved the low level Spitfire clip accompanied by Edgar’s music.
Thanks, Chris, (and cameraman!) for this detailed insight and sharing your impressions of this iconic machine!
My granddad flew many German WW2 aircraft for evaluation etc. and I always think of him when seeing one of these planes. I bet if you continue with the ITC series, one day you will have sat in every type my granddad did, and I really am thankful to you for giving me an opportunity to do so, too, by watching your videos!
I read something about a Bf-109 pilot test flying the rather large P-47, and not liking it becausse he actually had to reach out for the controls. When you think of it, it would be nice to have all your controlls close to you when you are dealing with G forces.
When the US Eagle Squadrons transferred from their beloved Spitfire to the huge P'47 -Thunderbolts they felt exactly the same. You strapped on a Spitfire as if it were a part of you, while in the extremely roomy "Jug" cockpit it felt like if you fell from the seat you'll break a leg. Not exactly a "fun" fact, in mock dogfights the P'47s fell from the sky like leaves, not being able to follow the much more versatile and maneuverable Spitfires. They eventually were banned from getting into dogfights below 8 000 feet. As one of the pilots said, the ideal fighting combination was a Yank in a Spitfire.
About people feeling ok in snug places. There was this movie (a biopic) called "Temple Grandin".
It's about a lady that is autistic but still managed to become an academic and ethologist.
She did research something similiar: she did an experiment once with other students where they were put into a "machine" she inevented that "hugged" them closely. And then asked the probants how they feel, and noted that.
She figured out that most did not feel claustrophobic when this happened at the shoulders and sides but the head and hands and feet were kind of free.
She used that for cattle that has to be moved into slaughter houses to make that more unstressing for the kettle and reduce injuries and problems.
So back from the off topic: i think that's why many have no problem with snug cockpits.
(edit: misspelled word)
Some F1 drivers have mentioned it's easy to doze off in the cockpit if they are just sitting there.
Excellent movie!
Kettle stress is a seriously underestimated issue. Imagine being forced to have boiling hot water inside on a daily basis.
They slaughter kettles now? How does one boil their tea then?
Sorry guys, english is not my native language.
I once read about a Dutch pilot saying something along the lines of "You wore the Spitfire like a suit", which he preferred to the Meteor's apparently more roomy cockpit.
I flew in the USAF. I prefer snug cockpits, the kind I suited up rather than climbed into.
I think Galland said that about the Bf109
when the seat is hugging you like a glove you can feel every movement of the airplane better. It is like you are attached to it better.
@@vornamenachname989 Wouldn't surprise me if the pilot heard Galland's comment and agreed.
@@zJorizYeah probably
Thanks!
Thanks so much, Jim!
And then you jump in a P-47 and hear a distant echo....
If you're being shot at just run around in the cockpit to dodge the bullets. 😂
@@DABrock-author -- There are whole bunch of those jokes from American pilots who flew Spitfires, and then been forced to fly P-47s, not a bad deal... But my favorite from one of 'em pilot jokes:
-- As I'm getting into my "bottomless" Jug(P-47), I was afraid to miss the seat, and fall through my airplane and break a neck...
The P-47 Jug is beautiful. Followed by the FW190, then the P-51, then the BF109...sorry 109...
@@DruidTimer -- Yeah, P-47, P-51 Mustang and P-38 Lightning, just for looks get a soft spot in my heart, never mind all remarkable aircraft, all are Giants when it comes to size. In voice of US president #45 - they are "Huge"! IDK about Bf-109 though... it was one of the most dangerous Axis fighters, if notorious, and 109-phobia was a real thing, during WWII among Allied pilots, just like Tiger tank phobia on the ground. While FW-190 was a German P-47 Jug... except it preferred four 20mm "artillery" guns, in addition two 51cal. MGs.
@@DABrock-author The English pilot 'Ginger' Lacy made that comment; specifically in reference to the 'Jug's somewhat lethargic turn and climb (as compared with his Spitfire)
I’ve sat in one. At 5’8” I fitted perfectly. Thank you, David Price.
I sat inside the 109 Gustav that was formerly at the Evergreen aviation museum in McMinnville, Oregon. I am 5'10 and I was already claustrophobic after one minute inside. Never meet your heroes, they will always disappoint you. Still a beautiful plane. Great video!
Just proves how much of a dare devil those pilots were
And just for a little nightmare fuel....
Imagine you're in that cockpit. There's holes blown through all over your plane, you're on fire, you're fighting with the controls to try and keep it as straight and level as you can AND you gotta try and get out of the cockpit so you can bail out safely.
That heavy hinged canopy probably did not help matters!
I've read accounts of German pilots being shot down. They would jettison the canopy, unbuckle the straps and then roll the aircraft inverted, so as to fall out.
@@waynemathias8074 Why they called it the 'Sargdeckel' /'coffin lid'
On left side of cockpit is a handle, using it release whole canopy (exept windshield part). Quite safer than sliding canopy.
Remember reading the Biography of Robert Stanford Tuck a British fighter pilot during WW2. In it he was given the opportunity to fly a captured 109. He felt it was a little claustrophobic , with the canopy closed being that the canopy had all of those bars and girders, he also noted that vison in some quarters was restricted by the same...
Josh fits perfectly the 109, he is the peak male body
@@Nicolasgusso I agree
The short king
@@tedarcher9120 I’m surprised people call 170 cm. short when the worldwide male average height is 173 cm.
@@fastica The data includes people from Asian countries that have naturally smaller men and who exist in large numbers and at all ages, with older men being shorter. I am 175cm tall and I am shorter than the vast majority where I live here in Brazil.
It's an average size, people are just brain rotted by social medias and unrealistic standards
Chris - Overall height of the pilot is not the most critical measurement for fitting into a cockpit. The critical dimension is the sitting height of the pilot, especially for aircraft with ejection seats. My brother was a 20-year US Navy pilot and flew P3's because his sitting height was too tall for any of the ejection seat fitted fighter aircraft the US Navy was flying at the time. The measurement is critical because the top of the pilot's helmet must be below the top of the ejection seat when the pilot is fully kitted out and seated in the plane. Thanks again for another interesting segment.
Exactly, as fighter pilots, tank crews, etc. are picked because they will fit the machine. Also the US Navy likes to have an extra large mechanic as well as a tiny mechanic for each of their ships...
As a glider pilot I always appreciate planes which you “put on” rather than “enter”. It gives you a better connection with the glider.
This is my favorite aircraft since i was kid , i have the 1/48 model of this aircraft in many version , B-1 , E-3 , E-4 , F-2 , G-2 , G-6 , G-10 , G-14 , K-4 and K-14 (the last version with four blades propeller , i scratchbuilt this from K-4 kit)
The Czech 109 (Avia -199) had a fat bubble canopy without the jail bar effect after the war. The 109 was at its design limits by 1944...it was jet and rocket plane era.
I have watched a video of someone who flew the the Spitfire at air shows and when he sat inside the Bf 109 he also found is rather claustrophobic.
Your team does a great job sir. For sure we weren't as big then as now. I did often wonder about the 109 cockpit. I am the educator at THE SOUTHERN MUSEUM OF FLIGHT in BIRMINGHAM, Alabama. THANKS MUCH.
Being "only" 5'6" myself, and never reaching any weight over 140lbs, I've always been quite comfortable in smaller spaces, in fact I'd probably have preferred the constricted dimensions of the Bf 109 because having the aircraft wrapped so tightly around my body would enable me to see more around me outside of the aircraft while not compromising what I needed to see inside the cockpit. (I conclude this assessment by comparison of driving a small sports car vs. a large van or the like.) Plus, in my lifetime, experience has taught me that a small person can get into small and big spaces, but a big person can only get into big spaces. This sentiment can be transferred to aircraft which would see this as a benefit if, for example, they were having to weave in between formations of heavy bombers.
"It's a plane" - It was worth the watch just for this line LOL
Well, there was more room in a Defiant’s turret! I remember reading “The First and The Last” where Galland said, “you didn’t climb into a 109’s cockpit, you strapped the aircraft on”.
Wasn’t the idea of the 109 to create a a highly manoeuvrable and smallest airframe around the most powerful engine available?
Great video Biz. Man I want one of those cockpits in my game room, very cool !!! Rock on !!!!!!!!
i read somewhere that Willi wanted the cockpit to help contain the pilot for max g maneuvering in mind.
I have not read that, but the pilot's position with the legs extended outward would help when coping with high G forces.
He didnt want a canopy for the pilot, instead to be in the fuselage
I'm very happy to be 1m75 tall and absolutely not claustrophobic. I am French but I am in Germany for study... I hope I will have an opportunity to go to the Messerschmitt Museum to jump inside the cockpit of the BF109 ! I love aviation so let's dream about that !
Try getting into an MS. 406. I think it's a bit smaller.
"Surrenderers" do not have the privilege to sit on the 109...
@@gsm2424 if you reduce the French military to the 1940 northern campain, you also do not have the privilege (french word) to sit in the 109. first of all because it's dumb to reduce a whole country to some month of his history second because the French have proven their value many time during ww2 and third because also in the 1940 northern campain french soldiers have proven their bravory and hability to fight ( for exemple Dunkirk without the last stand of the french the english were destroy be the german) and it's the high command who failed
@@mikhailiagacesa3406 yes ! if I can try it, I will !
@@gsm2424just found an asshole 😮
best advert ever. I am totally going to visit one day!
Many years ago I had the opportunity to sit inside both a ME-262 and a P-47. What a difference! I'm 6'3". I could not get into the Messerschmidt past my hips. The Thunderbolt was no problem, actually quite roomy.
I was privileged to tour " Sentimental Journey". A B17 from the Confederate Air Force. It landed in Baker City Oregon and we spotted it flying as we were on vacation. It was tight inside as Im only 5'9". Hats off to the crews and the Greatest Generation!
It is never about your total vertical height, it is way more important to have a sitting height which fits
My understanding is that the seat in the 109 can be adjusted to three positions, but it can only be done on the ground!
Former 109G-2 'Black 6' pilot Dave Southwood was over 6 ft tall IIRC, as was the late Mark Hanna who flew both the Buchon and the then Hans Dittes Buchon G-10 conversion now with the Messerschmitt Museum.
I remember Mark mentioning in an article that the Charles Church Buchon had a slight bulge in the top canopy perspex that was helpful in giving a bit more headroom for taller pilots.
Anyway, thanks for the video!
"Wings of the Luftwaffe", page 154, 109G-2 cockpit drawing, item 3: "Seat height adjustment handle". (Pardon the repetition if it's already been posted).
This is awesome. The 109 was the first aircraft I learned to fly in IL2 and very often my go to plane when picking up the sim after some time off. I found this very interesting!
this is a great video to demonstrate why some WW2 fighters roll rates were deceptive from what they could do on paper vs in combat. If the controls got stiff from high speed and it took great force to roll the plane, you could get greater leverage if you had more room. In a roomy plane like the P-47, you could probably apply much greater stick force than a tight plane like the BF-109. So even though for the same stick force one might roll faster than the other, in reality stick force would vary from pilot to pilot and from plane to plane. Supposedly, Japanese Zero pilots had what we would call a "breaker bar" that they would slide over the flight stick, extending it for leverage so they could apply extra force to help pull out of steep and fast dives when the controls were very stiff
I have been in a Spitfire and although not too much of a problem at 5' 10'' in terms of height, my rather wide shoulders were almost touching the cockpit sides and that was wearing a shirt not an Irvin Jacket or anything else bulky. As the WW2 pilots would say, 'you didn't fly these aircraft, you wore them!'.
Fine video! A few years ago I saw a Bf-109 in a museum (Reptár) here in Hungary. The fighter displayed temporary at the museum (just a few month). It has really tight cockpit. It is not recommended who has cloaustrophobia 🙂
I’m the same height. That would have been my excuse too: “Fight in a fighter plane? No sorry…too tall. I’m the prefect height for an office job in the Pay Corps….🤓”
109's are SMALL, and it was built like that to be light and agile. But it was also built to fit an "average" man, which was, and still is ~180cm tall for northern europeans. We also shouldnt forget that the 109 is a plane that first flew in early 1935, so the actual design is from the first half of the 30's, which is just INSANE to think about, as it kept 85% of the airframe untouched thru out all of its different versions, most of the parts that were changed were obviously enginemounts, cowlings and parts of the wings. But mainly it was so ahead of its time, and good performing platform (yes i know that Messerschmitt sadly was favoured by Göring, which hindered alot of German airengineering in the later half of the war) that it stayed almost the same until the end, and also after the war (licensed built copies for spain, south america etc.)
"It kept 85% of the airframe untouched thru out all of its different versions. . . ." That is hard to believe, considering just the change from E-models to F-models. No surface panels were the same, and the fuselage construction was certainly different as it no longer had struts for the horizontal tail. The underwing radiators were a different size and shape. The wingtips were a different shape. The canopy was the same as late E-models, but early Es and all earlier versions had a completely different canopy. I'm sure that I'm forgetting a lot.
@@kingnorlen Average height was shorter back then, around 175 cm for North European males.
In the 1940s it was nearer to 170cm. Scandinavians bumping that average up significantly. Even today it's a little less than 180.
@@TTTT-oc4eb That plane was still tight even for a 175cm tall guy or even shorter. Consider the way they dressed for combat.
Roald Dahl was 198 cm tall and actually flew the Spitfire during WW II. It was definitely not a pleasant experience for him. Keep in mind, you're sitting on the parachute, too.
Actually he flew the hurricane, which was roomier
@@theonlymadmac4771 You're right. Though I disintictly remember him describing how he, after a long flight to Greece, I think, basically had to be lifted out of the cockpit after arriving. Even the Hurricane simply wasn't designed to fit a man of his frame.
Didn't both the Hurricane and Spitfire also have the advantage of the control column only pivoting at the top of the column for roll? It meant that if you had long legs, they were less likely to get in the way, as we see here with a standard joystick.
@@theonlymadmac4771 Got beaten to it.
The "seat" is a recessed cavity into which the chute fits. Nevertheless, at 6'6" he was indeed tall.
(*Laughs in 1.75 meters tall.)
Never sat in a 109. But I will tell you, the Mirage III I sat in felt like a matchbox once you closed the canopy.
Grear little snippet of a video, Chris. And cheers to the cameraman. He could fly Cr.42s and Macchis and feel right at home.
Fascinating stuff. These guys weren't even fully equipped to take off for a mission. Imagine wearing a helmet, sheepskin jacket, warm boots, thick gloves, a Mae West and sitting in a parachute. Very intimate indeed.
You will just wear the Bf109! Great video.
More room than a lot of tanks. At 190 myself, working on a churchill, grant and stuart, they are very cramped to be in. The worst is a blitz truck, absolutely impossible to drive, even as a passenger you can barely fit.
The canopy with wide frames was introduced on the 109E and clever pilots kept the thinner framed one from the E-1. That's also why the Erla Haube was introduced on the later G model.
2:15 what a delightful goof.
"classified" haha, good humoured. I'm 6'6" so my dreams of a diy bf109 Sim cockpit have been tempered.
As with MrRobert... I had the same observations a young lad in the early-mid 1970s. At the time, there was what could best be described as a warbird junkyard located near Chicago in the farm areas by Lake Zurich. I was about 7 when we first discovered it in a class field trip. The owner had set it up as a "museum." basically you paid and walked around completely unsupervised. Each time you went the museum would change, but there were a few staples. A B25 without engines. An A-26 night intruder in ANG markings that looked complete but probably wasn't certified. A real baka bomb. The middle half a civilian luxury conversion PBY that was wrecked in a great lakes storm (that you could walk through). A fully flying Texan. The front cockpit area from an HS129 (I saw an article later where this was an extremely rare artifact.) Various Lockheed Electra's and Beech 18s.
At various time 3/4 of an F6F (the one now at Chino restored) the P-47M that's still around. a P51 cockpit. And one time several crated Spitfires from the Battle of Britain movie in a shed.
To get back to the point, there were 3 Buchon's from the Battle of Britain movie in about 80-90% condition each every time I went. I was already a WWII nerd and had seen the movie and I remember noticing how much smaller they were than I had imagined. As noted, the owner didn't care or monitor what you did so my dad picked me up one time and let me walk up to the cockpit and even as a little kid I thought "Man, that's small!"
Hallo Ich habe bei einem Besuch in Laatzen bei Hannover einen der Museumsinhaber gefragt wie denn große Piloten das gemacht haben, die es ja auch vereinzelt gab. Dort wurde mir gesagt das für diese Flieger der Tank unterm Sitz ausgebaut oder versetzt wurde.
I’m not surprised that it is small for a tall person. Apparently the Spitfire cockpit was built with a pilot who was 5 foot 8 inches ( approximately 173 cm) high. I suspect that would be the same for the 109.
In his autobiography, Johnny Johnson, who was six foot tall, said that the Spitfire was "tight across the shoulders" but otherwise OK.
A quick search suggest that 173 cm was how tall the average german male was for the group the would be young during WW2.
2:36 Fritz, doesn't Fritz
That "Oh Dear" got me.. 😆
I wonder the with foreknowledge of obvious pilot complaints coming after the introduction of the Bf-109 that when Kurt Tank went to design a competitor/ alternative aircraft to the Messerschmidt he just might have said: " So what is the first and most obvious way I can create a 'better" plane than the 109 ?" The answer was easy...make the cockpit as Pilot Friendly as possible and he sure did as the FW-190 has a great cockpit layout and design. Just watch Gregs Airplanes and Automobiles FW cockpit video and you'll see his opinion.
Very good video! Please do Hs-129 cockpit next!
Chris: You are hilarious!
And brilliant
Keep it up
Sitting in the back, jump seat of a Frontier pickup was interesting. One faces inwards, with your back to the wall. When the front passenger moved her seat forwards (to give me more space), I rattled around too much with each stop and start. Whilst slightly claustrophobic, it was WAY more comfortable to have the seat in front of me scoot back, just till all the empty space was gone, but not a tight fit. Much more comfortable. And claustrophobic.
Did I mention claustrophobic?
I'm 1.9m as well, and I've sat in the Bf109, FW190, F18, Spitfire, Yak 3, Macchi MB326, Mirage F1 and a few others (no head issues in a Tiger Moth, which I actually got to fly as well!) My overriding impression is that they're all either small or snug, but not impossible to manage. The single biggest issue I encounter every time is when closing the canopy - head clearance is the problem, exactly as you had in this video. Add a helmet and parachute, and it becomes impossible to move your head and look around properly. The later aircraft had seat vertical adjustment at least, but the earlier ones do not, and whilst I could probably *fly* one if forced to, actually fighting in one would be a disaster.
There was a German ace of the Western front whose name I can't recall that began his combat career flying FW-190s in 1943. He was wounded and was out of action for almost a year and was reassigned to a JG that flew ME-109s. He was not happy at all with it and actually referred to it as a "shitbox".
Just Moved to Regensburg and checken how dar the Museum is. Im gonna visit the Heck out of it thats for sure
Spoke with a RAF Spitfire pilot 40 years ago that got a chance to sit in a crashed 109 and he said it was similar to a Spitfire in regard to cockpit size. His comment was you strapped the Spitfire to you and he wasn’t a tall man either, about 5’ 9”.
Awesome! In the early 90s I attended a Subsonic Aeronautics Testing Association (SATA) conference in Baden-Baden. Afterwards, my mother-in-law (who was born in Germany) made arrangements for me to spend a few days with my wife's Great Aunt and Uncle (Max and Kati Wagner), in Augsburg. They were beautiful and nice people. Max was an BF-109 test pilot for Messerschmitt during World War II. I feel blessed to have had the opportunity to get to know these wonderful people.
One thing ive come to appreciate about being 5'7" is that it means im able to fit with some ease through old museum ships. Getting through a submarine bulkhead can be less than pleasant for tall guys.
"It's a plane." The camera man needs a raise for that line.
was lucky enough to be able to sit in the cockpits of the Me 109 .. the FW 190A and Spit 14 during a private visit to the Laatzen museum (Hannover)
Also measuring 1.70 M ... no problem .. but indeed the cockpit of the 109 is the smallest of the three ... the Spit being the most spacious
My favorite is the cockpit of the 190!Nowit's to try this with the full flying gear ... that can be a other experience !
Would it have been possible to fit a bubble canopy on the Bf 109 back in World War II?
Over thirty years ago, my family and I visited an airshow at Eindhoven Airbase. Featured on the program were the Italian Frecce Tricolore.
There were also many vintage World War II era fighters and planes.
At one point, two Italian pilots walked by and I was amazed how short they were. They were like 1.65 m at most.
A 195 cm guy with a flying suit/jacket, airman's helmet and maybe a parachute is not going to fit at all, even if he flies with his neck bent all the time. It's really something to see a Bf 109 cockpit for real at leisure.
Thank you for another wonderful video. Considering the mad maneuvering that gangs of terrified and vengeful 'twenty-somethings' hurling about the air bent on homicide might perpetrate, I suspect it was some comfort to be in the embrace of a snug cockpit.
The luftwaffe should've made Göring as the pilot size reference for the cockpit
When I was a teen, I was looking to enter the RAF. At 168cm they were already earmarking me for Harrier Jump Jets, due to my size, as long as I made it through training. However, a medical issue halted me even getting anywhere.
You left out a very important detail: due to the DB inverted Vee-engine configuration the level of noise intrusion- and hence, pilot fatigue - is much less than compared with a Buchon
Josh is a hoot! He could do standup...
I remember seeing an interview with an Mustang pilot who, after the war, got the chance to sit in a 109. He said if he'd known how poor visibility was from its cockpit he would have been much more aggressive with them.
Great video! As always...
@5:49 that looks like he is sitting in the Merlin powered Ha-1112 built after the war (note the exhaust stacks near the top of the cowling). Is this the plane he is regularly flying? Perhaps they made some changes to the cockpit seating with the Ha-1112?
The camera man is awesome, “Its a plane” 😂
Getting out of that in an emergency must have been challenging.
With a parachute and flying cap, etc...yup, a sardine.
My 15-year old daughter is a freshman at the Central Florida Aerospace Academy. At 5’2”/157cm we have found the perfect solo plane for her. Vielen Dank.
Eric Brown said in wings of the Luftwaffe that the 109G controls were not very well harmonized, comparing the elevator to ailerons. I wonder if that could be due to less space being availabe for the ailieron axis?
Some years ago a B-17 (Nine O Nine, actually), a B-24 and an Allison engined 109 flew into a small regional airport and I went to see these machines in person. The 109 was legit aft of the engine compartment and that cockpit was TINY! Not just for tall pilots, also for pilots with broad shoulders. It was originally an E airframe, but even looking in it was obvious how tight a fit it was for anybody taller than about 5’9.” The later Galland Haube had better visibility, that armor glass had to make it just as snug if not more so. Visibility with the flat plate canopies was just barely adequate. I’m 6’2” and about 240, so there was no way I could even come close to fitting in the 109. Still a very potent and dangerous machine, though. I read about a restoration of a G-14 and the data plate of the engine dated it to December, 1944. It was torn down for a rebuild and the parts were measured against the blue prints, and they were all bang in the middle of very tight tolerances. Amazing German industry could still produce an engine of that quality so late in the war.
Thanks again, Chris..
My pleasure!
I've seen one of these and it's the most compact fighter I have ever seen during that period. The German war industry was not what people think it was and they had to build these fighters on the cheap and they had to build a lot of them. You could literally say that this is the StuG III, Sherman, T34 of fighter planes.
And the fact that they were able to modify it so much to keep up, making it a viable threat up until the end of the German phase of the war, is a testament to its design and the skill of German aviation engineers.
Great video of a beautiful aircraft.
The Amelia Earhart museum has a mock up of her Electra cockpit. I'm 6'2"and I couldn't even get into the cockpit... Let alone the seat
This is why the German were surprised at the American cockpits having a baseball field and a hot tub inside of them.
This is a great example of both height requirements, and large-scale production to the most common body shape.
I remember seeing a British Pilot, flying The Memorial Planes, trying to sit in a 109 with his Gear and complaining that he had difficulty in sitting in one, even though being a rather short guy! Finn. Denmark
now i can imagine, how the Pilots work during dog fight on WW2, they must be in very good stamina
Tightness is one thing, but visibility also affects the sense of claustrophobia. The 109 has heavy framing and small-ish glass panels for its cockpit. This was the norm around 1940, but by the end of the war all the latest allied fighters in Europe were using some sort of bubble canopy. A Spitfire MK24 would have felt more spacious than a 109G just from the canopy alone.
I suspect a 109 with the Galland Hood would feel less cramped, even if the physical space available to the pilot was the same.
Once touring the USAF museum in Dayton Ohio I commented to a curator there about the size of cockpit on some of the aircraft. He responded “you must remember that in 1943 the average weight of a recruit was 138lbs and wore a size 36 coat”
Now try it in a full pilot uniform and parachute. The seat had three vertical positions so it could be lowered until it was flat to the floor. the rudder pedals had two feet positions.
I once sat in Hangar10‘s static G-14. I am 1.76 m tall, and found it to be a quite perfect fit (though with a cushion instead of the seat parachute. In fact I thought it to be quite comfortable compared to several older (wooden) gliders I used to fly. Though it was not the perfect seating position, as my right knee contacted the lower right edge of the instrument panel. This could have been altered by a different location of pedals and / or seat pan. Overall it felt quite like a nice working place for a pilot.
Plus flying helmet and a parachute in a heavy flying jacket (because it gets cold at altitude) I think they would suggest you try an FW190 for size instead, more room.