Hi. I flew the Hurricane, Spitfire and Me-109 as a test pilot and airshow pilot. I have a few comments: You mention the omission of cockpit heaters as an oversight, since they were not needed in earlier open-cockpit designs. I think that misses the point. Optional devices, such as heaters, were omitted due to weight, cost and complexity. A wise airplane designer once said that he throws all of the optional parts into the air, and those that come down are too heavy. The undercarriage control is a perfect example. The Hurri and Spit designs require the pilot to change hands immediately after takeoff to retract the undercarriage. A modern test pilot thinks, "Dumb design!" Remove the cowling, and the designer's thinking becomes clearer. The hydraulic pump is on the lower, right, aft part of the Merlin. The shortest, lightest, cheapest, and easiest-to-build solution is to run the hydraulics straight aft into the cockpit. The pilot's job wasn't made easier, but the fighter was made incrementally lighter. Lighter = better, even if the pilot's job is harder. That IS ergonomics in the 1930's. Likewise, tailwheel locks; best left out of the design unless the aeroplane needs it. The Spit and Hurry don't by virtue of their CG location with regard to the wheels. The Bf-109 had a comparatively VERY heavy tailwheel load. Omitting a tailwheel lock was not an option, so it justified the weight/cost/complexity. Speaking of which, the Bf-109s tailwheel lock is a great example of a bad idea; situated on the left canopy rail where movement of the throttle will cause one's forearm to accidentally dislodge it. (Ask me how I know!) The inherent ergonomic limitations of operating systems on these fighters represent the 1930's state of the art. A similar example of human factors is cockpit field of view. The Spit was utterly blind for takeoff and landing . The Hurri was better, with the cockpit raised up high on the fuselage. Was this an ergonomic decision? Nope. The Hurricane pilot sits higher to allow for a better depression angle over the nose for deflection shooting. The benefits for takeoff and landing were incidental. The design thinking was to use EVERY BIT of the pilot's ability if it made the airplane an ounce lighter. So much to say...Great video!
Finally, someone with something other than “I’m a DCS expert pilot”. The first time I climbed into a T-6 I realized how exorbitantly different, and radically unforgiving, the real world is. Love the T-6 though. ;-)
Bravo. I'd rather see more effectively in the air, than on the ground. Even over cognitive instrument processing time. Because in the air 'Other Human Factors' are trying 2 kill me. Fun 'Fact.'
What if you crash and die in the ground, because you were unable to take off due to the poor visibility? Just because it was state of the art at the time, doesnt mean it was ergonomic or couldn't have been done better...
Overall great comment about the reasoning for design decisions that may be unintuitive/harder to use, but I can't help myself from nitpicking. It's decidedly NOT ergonomic design, it's (as you correctly point out later) ergonomic benefits being sacrificed in order to achieve other performance benefits; weight/cost to produce/etc..
I'm glad you mentioned the ammo counters, it's amazing how hard it is to try to keep track of ammo in a sim. I can only imagine what'd it be like with the pressure of real combat.
Most people in video games have trouble keeping track and they have a digital value displayed directly on their screen. I've flown my P-47s enough that at this point I have a pretty strong intuition of how much ammo I have left without checking, so it's not like a lack of ammo counters was unworkable, just unnecessary.
I am just started trying to learn how to fly in DCS and on Sunday I was doing a mission. I locked up 2 MiG-21s that were comimg in fast, already pretty close and fired an AMRAAM at each one and then broke to try and stay out of the merge. As I turned around I started hearing their weird noise and my HUD symbology changed and I was like, "WTF am I out of AMRAAMs?" Yes. Yes I was. I can't even keep track of that with a little blip in front on me that says 3MRM, 2MRM, 1MRM. I ended up turning back around, locking the last MiG with my 9X, but it went after flares and I ended up merged. Let's just say I haven't mastered keeping visual contact with bandits (or really anything if I'm honest) and while I was looking for the guy, I flew into the side of a hill.
A lot of pilots were still doing the "last 50 rounds with tracer" trick so they knew when they were at the limit of their ammo and had just enough to try to deal with what they were currently doing (or run home if they'd just finished dealing with it).
Ammo counters in aircraft are one those funny little things, which became so basic that nobody ask why they are there, but when it comes to someone's favourite plane lacking them, then it's suddenly unnecessary waste of space. I don't think I've read a lot of pilot stories, but cases where a pilot fights for a long time to get into position to fire, only to find his guns empty, are not that uncommon.
I recall seeing a documentary regarding George Beurling, a Canadian flying with the RAF. During a training flight (gunnery) he told his instructor how many holes he put in the target, and how many he had left. He turned out to be correct on both counts.
Eric Brown noted in one of his books that the birdcage noses on German bombers were not only optically poor with lots of distortion from the curved plexiglass they also had a nasty tendency to fog. I'm pretty sure it was in wings of the Luftwaffe but I don't remember which chapter. In any case a blurry or foggy windscreen isn't just an inconvenience it also takes a psychological toll. Humans are visually oriented and blurry windows are both maddening and distracting. A foggy windshield drives me nuts when I'm driving a car; I can't imagine flying a plane with a fogged windscreen is any less annoying.
The fogging was a big issue in the Heinekel 111 . Little known fact, look at the cockpit of one immediately above the pilots seat. There is a sliding hatch.to open on approach if the cabin fogs up, amazingly the pilots seat and primary controls all elevate on pulling a large lever , leaving the pilots head just above the fuselage ,enabling him to land it like a 1920’s open cockpit airframe.
It was definitely a dangerous fighter. Many pilots didn't really like it. One thing is bc the cockpit was hot. The way the fuselage was designed, the heat from the engine made it real hot. Kurt Tank tried to address it, but it never went away.
@@franktreppiedi2208 sorry for being a bit late, but your comment reminded me of Lavochkin and his La-5 and La-7, both of which had cockpit temperature problems among other things. If I remember correctly, the temperature within a closed cockpit varied from 40-45 to 55 degrees, honestly can't remember the specific numbers, sorry.
Most of the circa 1939-40 Spitfire and Hurricane pilots were transitioning out of aircraft that didn't even HAVE retractable gear, flaps nor variable pitch props: They had NOTHING to compare cockpit layout to.
As an engineer, ergonomics is always on my mind. Attention to detail is key. Two engineers can design similar things, and people will know one engineer is better, but not be sure why exactly. The difference will be in the engineer who paid close attention to details and just an all around better refined design. Aircraft ergonomics is one of these examples. Some engineers get it and do a great job, most do not. I also experienced this in combat with other vehicles. When strapped in, we couldn't reach half the switches on the dash, and so we'd have to ride around not strapped in. whoever designed that dash needed to be fired, there was no excuse for such a massive flaw. We were constantly modifying our vehicles to work better and be practical. I helped give feedback to many companies regarding their equipment and its many flaws. Some engineers take the feedback well and improve their product, others take offense and refuse to fix their mistakes. If you're an engineer, don't be the latter. Welcome feedback from people who actually rely upon what you design. I'm glad you're covering such factors in aircraft.
I used to fly survey, most companies have a proprietary display. With what some engineer figures is correct. Leica had the altitude commands different from aircraft standards. Ie: command bars up fly down, extended centre line a lovely curly cue until 2miles back etc... The engineers response was "well it makes sense to me" these maybe brilliant men, but garbage engineers
My career was in IT. Everyone uses our products these days; we have all experienced the results of poor design and lack of response to user feedback. While software failures don't usually have life and death consequences it is becoming more common. I just fail to understand Engineers who resist user feedback. The Engineer might have "reasons", but those reasons don't matter if the product will not sell because it's unusable or fatal.
@@ndenise3460Bit silly not to follow aircraft standards if that is where the equipment is to be used ? Makes sense to that bloke but no one else and then the company wonder why sales are dropping? Mark from Melbourne Australia 🇦🇺
Similar things apply to buildings and furniture. Things should come to hand easily. Sometimes it can't be helped so for example a light switch is placed as close as possible to the entrance of the room. Later on when more furniture has been placed in the room, getting to said light switch can be tricky. I had an example of this at work just the other week and had to hunt around for the light switch. Mark from Melbourne Australia 🇦🇺
If you watch film of Hurricanes or Spitfires doing a scramble take-off you may see the wings rocking as they swap hands on the stick to raise the wheels.
Glen Curtis being a long time pilot and designer from the dawn of aviation putting a heater in his aircraft makes perfect sense. MAKE the time to go to his museum in NY. That British compass was highly accurate and widely used finding itself mounted in land vehicles in North Africa. Flying over water or driving through oceans of sand that thing kept many men alive and they were mass produced to a high tolerance. Pretty sure their war time manufacturing office was like 'Good enough, slap them on everything and make do. Next bloody problem!'😫 The ones mounted on open top vehicles always looked like Honey Pot jars that Winnie the Pooh had to me.😊 You da Man Greg.👍🏻
I'm having an absolutely fantastic day. I got started paying attention to Human Factors / Ergonomics a bunch of years ago when trying to design and build decent work station areas for multiple computers with multiple monitors. The best references that I've found have been NASA and of course the Human Factors Statistical data. I've run into several instances where the design started not with where is the bet position for accessibility for, pardon the expression, altitude challenged personnel, but with where is it easiest to install this required device. Often the relocation of the switch from 7 feet above the deck to a better location is non-trivial, requiring outside assistance to run new wiring. Other times it merely requires a bit of outside the box thinking. I think that of all the designers of the era, Kurt Tank, was the one who never forgot what it was like to be in the air in the middle of an emergency and worked hard to ensure that the emergency order of operations was simplified. As Juan Browne is fond of saying: Aviate, Navigate, Communicate. Thanks for a great series on ergonomics and design.
For many years I was a computer consultant and you might think the ergonomics is not that important, you would be wrong. putting entry field out of order confuses the entry clerk and leads to mistakes. putting the button that you want a person choose in the wrong place can really screw things up when they press the wrong button. These are just two examples in office situations that can lead to disasters. I remember looking at the report of the reasons for the Three Mile Island Nuclear Disaster and one of there main points was the design of the control boards making it difficult for the operators to fiqure out what was going wrong.
I’d imagine cockpit heating was seen as having significant drawbacks. If done with a heater core, as in cars, it would add another failure point for the engine cooling system. If done with ducted hot air, it would compromise the firewall and add to the chances of CO in the cockpit. It’s just unbelievable that the Germans were able to fly daylight fighters on the Wilde Sau missions against the night bombing raids. They certainly weren’t notably successful, but the sheer courage and skill required boggle the mind.
The US navy's standardisation of instrument layout made a huge change in reducing.training. Most cockpits looked like someone loaded.A shotgun with instruments, and fired at the panel
The Paxuent (spelling?) fighter conference report is illuminating. Lots of the navy pilots were pretty scathing about many cockpit and instrument layouts.
I fly a lot of 60's , 70's and 80s corporate turboprops. They have the standard 6 but with collins, arc, king, sperry, different nav systems etc. Crosshair vs handlebars FDs switchology etc...... My company spends about 500k per Aircraft to standardize on Garmin 1000 setups.
You avoided perhaps the most important HF issue - visibility - something that was a priority to fighter pilots. The FW 190 vis was less than ideal looking over the control panel, although vis behind was good. The Me109 vis was of course horrible, also the early P-51's with bird cage canopy. Late model Spit IXs, XVIs had a bubble canopy, increasing vis considerably over earliest ones.
@@GregsAirplanesandAutomobiles who knew. I suggest that a video like this provide upfront an overview (good instructional design) of prioritized ergonomic and HF issues. The learner may therefore see the bigger and more accurate picture. Then identifiy the limited issues you'd like to cover in this video and label it accordingly. I hope that is helpful. I agree with the castoring tailwheel issue and pneumatic brakes (often mushy). When scrambling large #s of WWII fighters with limited fwd vis, proper ground handling was often lacking and accidents did occur, but the brakes/tailwheel problem was more of a systems design issue than ergonomic one. Cheers.
Just last week I answered a "which fighter would you rather fly?" with "The more comfortable one". Some of those fighters were about as comfy as a steamer trunk.
@@raypurchase801 I remember an anecdote of some pilots (don't remember where from) saying that if you flew a P-47 and someone got on your six you could just run around the cockpit to dodge the gunfire, lol
Greg hits the spot with another pair of fascinating and original videos. I thought you might have mentioned the Mosquito as an example of how to absolutely get everything wrong in cockpit ergonomics.
I was thinking the same thing. Fuel controls essentially behind the seat, right handed flap and gear handle each with unique lock mechanism, center mounted gun sight in a side by side seat configuration etc. Human factors even extend to the navigator with the radio placed behind him requiring him to twist 180 degrees to operate it.
I'll talk about the Mossie at some point. That one is quite easy to do because the DCS sim models it so well. Finding good cockpit photos is a big problem with WW2 airplanes. I didn't talk about it in this series because multi-engine and multi-crew brings in a whole new set of issues.
@@GregsAirplanesandAutomobiles DCS does it great. Lovely airplane, but flying it in the sim is where I really noticed how a cockpit design can affect operating an aircraft. Part of that is obviously due to you having to do the work of two men. I was going to mention fuel gauges as well, but I assume the navigator would have assisted in keeping an eye on those. Excited for that video whenever it comes!
I guess de Havilland had to get something wrong with the Mosquito. It did have fantastic heating though. On a recent business trip to London I managed to get to the de Havilland Aircraft Museum in Hatfield where there are three Mosquitos, including the prototype. One of the docents asked if I wanted to see inside. Did not have to think about my answer. Definitely worth a visit if you’re in the area.
What an insightful presentation on an under-discussed topic, I hope you continue to expand this series! Human factors is something so rarely mentioned and yet while pilots didn’t fight, every time they went up in the air they had to manage the plane and live within the system the engineers had made!
My father had quite a few hours in the Spit MkIX and would completely agree with your assessment of the pneumatic brakes. Another problematic factor with pneumatics were any leaks in the system due to wear or battle damage meant a landing with no brakes. I know that you didn’t go into the 109, but my father was terribly disappointed when he had an opportunity to fly the Buchon. During the cockpit checkout it came to his attention that the canopy could not be closed with his 6’2” frame in the cockpit even without a seat pack on! The 109 cockpit is like being wedged into a F1 racer- I don’t know how anyone got out of it if it was out of control.
I think I saw somewhere that the Germans had devised a specific way of bailing out of the 109 which involved grabbing hold of handles installed for this purpose, crawling out of the cockpit to the left side and pushing your body downwards from the side of the fuselage to avoid being hit by the horizontal stabilizer struts of the early models. Of course this required that your arms and hands weren't too badly injured.
I remember a TV programme where a British Battle of Britain veteran was given the chance to sit in a ME109. His comment was that he would have been much more aggressive if he had realised how poor the visibility was from the German plane due to the close fitting and heavily framed canopy design.
@@Gloomendoom I saw something similar where a Battle of Britain Memorial Flight pilot had the opportunity to sit in a '109. Having spent many hours flying the Spit and Hurricane he was not impressed by the cramped conditions and poor view in the '109 (I seem to remember it was an F-4 version) as well as the heavy and clunky cockpit canopy. He did quite like the cockpit layout and instruments though.
Well, I’ve had a different experience. I am 193cm tall (I don’t know how much is that, 6 foot 5 maybe?) and I’ve had the privilege of sitting in a restored 109G and fiddling with controls. I’ve found the cockpit to be just the right size for me. The seat is very low, almost on the floor, comparable to sitting in a sports car with a very low seat. There was enough space for stick movement, when pulled all the way back the stick would be in my belly, lol. I’ve had a few cm between my shoulders and the fuselage/canopy frame so I could easily “check my six”. Also, plenty of space for my big head when the canopy was closed (Erla). I’ve found the 190 cockpit to be much more crammed than the 109 pit.
No floor in the Hurricane also meant punctured wing tanks with burning gasoline sloshing around inside the wing, vented out to the cockpit. Many pilots suffered greatly because of this. Sad.
Another great documentary, thanks Greg. Between you and Chris over at Military Aviation History I think I have learned more about the engineering and operation of historic aircraft then I did in the previous 40 years. This is YT at its best IMHO.
Really cool and agree on the Hurricanes compass it’s a bugger to use in flight! However I disagree on the brakes I find them quite easy to use and very much like the chippy! Also the undercarriage and flap mixer box is so easy however to a modern day pilot they would not understand it or why! Transitions from the throttle to the gear up is easy and no problem even if you forget the safety catch it’s easy just has to be done before about 110 mph otherwise the aerodynamic load on the gear doors may not allow them retract! Just my observations from flying a MK1 👍👍
the radiator under the Hurricane filled the cockpit with heat because the Hurricane had no floor and the heat wafted up from below. It has been mentioned in numerous memoirs that it was stifingly hot in Summer. It also had a fatal flaw in that the wingroot fuel tank would blast into the cockpit if set alight in combat because there was nothing between the fuel tank and the pilot's feet. Incidentally, none of the prewar fighters had any credible jettison system for their canopies until combat experience in Spain compelled the Germans and others to fit canopy jettison systems. the 109 had a spring fitted to it's canopy and the entire rear section would detach to allow the pilot to get out. the Spitfire and Hurricane had a jettison system fitted later that allowed the canopy to be unpinned with the tug of a red ball and slide back fully.
The 190 had a 20mm cannon cartridge to blow off the canopy because they found that it couldn't be opened manually at high speed as it would be kept in place by air pressure. Same for other high speed aircraft. Once the cannon shell fired, the jet of gas from it would lift the canopy off its rails and clear it away.
Robert Johnson wrote about getting trapped in the P-47 cockpit because the canopy was jammed after his plane got shot up. This forced him to fly the badly damaged P-47 home, to his amazement.
In regards to the Hurri radiator filling the cockpit with heat, I recall my wingman saying once that he could see shimmers of heat billowing from my cockpit when I had the canopy open. On a hot summer day, it felt like sitting on a barbecue. Our Mk IV Hurri did ground attack duty in North Africa. My sympathies to the poor crews.
I'd love to see a series on this for the more common twin engine planes - Mosquito, Bf110, P-38, maybe even a Ki-102? More cockpit space, double the engines and fuel tanks compared to regular fighters, often a second (or even third!) crewmember to split workload and controls with. Would certainly be an interesting watch.
Pilots blacking out due to high G is a pretty fundamental aspect of 'human factors' & where the pilot's legs go is a major factor where inflatable trousers are absent.
7.56 is the Standard Blind Flying Instrument Panel. It was used in fighters, bombers and trainers. It was needed because the RAF was a night fighting force. The annual Air Exercises starting in 1924 included night fighting practice. The last one in 1938 was entirely at night. It used 1300 aircraft, 700 searchlights, & 53000 personnel.
The ammunition counters on the german and Italian aircraft were timed off the guns as they recoiled. When the guns were reloaded, the crew zeroed the counters so that they corresponded to full ammo tanks. Even half filling a tank got a matching white line on the counters. They were deliberately placed in the pilots sight line so he knew how much he had left.
Just a word about the P Type RAF compass. The way it was designed to be used was not to move the clamped ring to find your heading. The idea was that you moved the ring to the heading you wanted and then turned the aircraft so that the north pointing part underneath aligned with the two parallel Lins above. As you observed it was an instrument that was more use in a ship or maybe a transport aircraft. Suffice to say that on the Tiger Moth I used to fly on pleasure flights we kept the P Type as a piece of history and had an E2B panel mounted compass fitted as well. This idea of having a compass where north wasn't quite where you expected it to be appears to be British as it was perpetuated in the post war Smiths Flight System where north was indicated by a pointer that could be anywhere on the dial depending on how the pilot set the desired track.
Kurt Tank was apparently a pretty good pilot, and an electrical enginer, so it's no surprise that he put in these human factors to ease the work load. Cheers from the Pacific West Coast of Canada.
You mentioned the tailwheel on the Hurricanes and Spits, and I think the FW190's tailwheel was a clever design. AFAIK, the pilot locked the otherwise free-castering tailwheel by pulling back slightly on the stick. This feature allowed the pilot to lock and unlock the wheel as needed during taxiing without having to take a hand off either the throttle or stick.
Thanks for another superb video. One thing that I don't think anyone mention at all, that I think should be included into human factors consideration, is the colours of instrument panels. Not that there are any one design that is superior to all, but if the panels are in contrasting colours to the instruments, it's easier to locate them with the smallest glance. If they are in similar colours to the gauges, I personally feel it is more difficult to locate them by glance, but easier to identify what gauges are showing what information. Also, though I cannot empirically prove, I feel that an another human factors win for German seating position is the relative ease of manipulating side or wall-mounted controls. I felt it incredibly strong when I climbed onto the cockpit of a Meteor F.8 from Midlands Air Museum. Once I sat inside, I could not really comfortably operate (or even see) the controls on the sides. When we design automobiles, we usually use percentile models not just for checking whether they fit inside the vehicle, but for checking if there are any controls that are technically within reach, but is not intuitive to manipulate. When I am seating lower and my legs stretched further forward, my upper body seems generally better relaxed, including the shoulders. Anyone who's been inside a really low-slung car, like an Elise or most McLaren stuffs, would (hopefully) know what I am talking about. Also, I'd suggest, of all the planes that were developed during the war and/or numerically close to, or is, irrelevant in WW2, the de Havilland Hornet would be among the best out there.
Auto engineers would do well to put the passenger seat on an angled mount as it move back it moves down vs making it 3" taller than the driver. I smash my head getting in whenever I go along with my wife in the minivan
I’m surprised that the twin-step rudder pedals on the Spitfire weren’t discussed. Maybe I missed it. The upper step raising the pilots feet relative to his head thus helping mitigate the effects of high G forces.
Hello!! Greeting's from Scotland!! Talking about science or engineering subjects shouldn't involve offending anybody!!! I think your videos are amazing!!!! : )
I've always loved the Fw-190s in DCS, because (compared to others) the cockpit just makes sense. While I enjoy the flight models of other aircraft, I'm always brought back to the 190 by the human factors. It's just more enjoyable to fly when you never have to think "where is the switch for x thing?"
Awesome video as always Greg! Now I’m curious about human factors in WWII bombers and transports, especially anything in the China-Burma-India theatre that had to fly The Hump ie C-46’s, C-87’s, B-29’s. Then how B-17’s and Lancasters would compare. I’m thinking back on your PBY Catalina video now and how a flight engineer position, or lack there of would impact Crew Resource Management (though I’m fully aware CRE wasn’t a thing for decades to come). I gotta imagine a B-29 had a much more crew friendly layout vs. a Do-17, Me-323, Vickers Wellington, He-177(maybe poor gauges/placement made its engine fire problems worse).
This weekend I learned that part of the reason that B-17 bombers were more accurate than B-24's in hitting their designated targets was a direct result of human engineering. The switch that allowed B-17 bombardiers to toggle their bomb load, dropping bombs individually in a timed sequence, walking their way across the target, was much easier to reach than the equivalent switch in the B-24. As a result, more B-24 bomb loads were dropped in salvo, or all at once, which made for an all-or-nothing result.
@@thomasknobbe4472 Really? could you tell us how you ran across that feature? I wasn't aware it was an option in bombers of the early war period, more a manual switch toggleing thing (but I assume B-29 had ALL the bells and whistles, due to extensive development time). I DO need to revisit the Seattle Museum of Flight again, and ask more questions instead of gawking at the pretty planes!
16:00 Wow that is an awesome period photo, an air mechanics A-la-cart of frustration. Always interesting to see any Vought or grumman design with camo and Euro roundals, brings out their stout looks.
I watched the take off sequence in the cockpit of a spitfire. I loved the brake system. No idea how to work it, but it looks cool and that's all that matters
A most under-appreciated factor contributing to pilot fatigue is the upright vs. inverted Vee-engine configuration. I read a most interesting interview with a display-pilot who pointedly remarked in the stark difference on noise intrusion when flying the Buchon in comparison to the Bf 109. Another interesting technical issue: cockpit lighting. The He219 for example used a novel ultraviolet lighting system in conjunction with phosphorescent instrument displays. I wonder how many pilots and avionics technicians were victims of American radium-painted dials?
Greg! I am so glad you made this series of videos. I’ve been arguing stuff along these lines forever. Most people only see speed, altitude, and other similar specifications when debating airplanes. Ergonomics, cockpit, layout, and ease of flying are tremendously important.
Fascinating subject! So much technical detail. I'm a little crestfallen as these old war birds are so much more complex than I ever figured. Not having much in the way of real aircraft knowledge my self, it's humbling to get a glimpse of the vast amount I do not know.
Great video as usual. I like the comment about bombers and transports: long missions, subfreezing temperatures, on oxygen! Another one is gunsights it would seem desirable to have at least one extra hand to operate a computing gunsight in a dogfight.
Nicely done, Greg - as usual. Really old people like me can remember when automobile controls and settings could often be done by feel, as well. My 2023 vehicle has lots more stuff to control, but it's all electronic displays that have to be touched in a certain way or in the right spot, and I have to look at the display (thus taking my eye off the road and traffic in the vicinity) to make sure I'm adjusting it to the proper setting. It's a (very) slow version of the fighter pilot's dilemma in a poorly-designed cockpit. P.S. I'm not able to access the patreon stuff. I get a page with an image of a WW I British fighter at the top, and a bunch of grayed-out boxes with no images or text, so I don't know what I'm looking at. Maybe it's the age and OS of my computer, but it's unique to your site. Help?
I'm right there with you on the controls in modern cars. They are actually getting harder to use not easier. I just checked my Patreon and it's working fine. You might be seeing blanked out stuff because you are not a member (that's just a guess).
@@GregsAirplanesandAutomobiles Hi, again! Then I'm confused (again). How does one become a "member?" I'm subscribed to the site, with the little notification bell turned on. I thought patreon membership was what's required to go to the next level, but I'm not able to do anything with patreon, such as "join," because of the issue(s) that have already cropped up.
I think standardized instruments are the way to go, sure, but it is not that important as professional car and airplane testers tend to think, as a normal WW II pilot does not change airplane types very often. Only the good ones have the chance and they will hack it anyway. The bad ones are dead in a short timespan. Btw one of the best explanations of poor cockpit design is in astronaut Michael Collin’s wonderful autobiography „carrying the fire“ when he describes his test pilot experience. Very enjoyable to read!
Every video from Greg is a gem. As a passionate model builder and armchair historian I thank you sir for your dedication, hard work and commitment to producing these wonderful and well informed videos.
I don't remember if you covered it or I read it somewhere else, but the 190 also had a differential elevator bell crank that allowed for fine movements near the center with an eccentric effect at full limits, as well as aileron control linkages designed to reduce the force required for deflection to about 8lb which was what they determined was comfortable for the average human wrist. Thanks for the informative videos, definitely makes building 1,000 Cessna brakes on night shift go quickly.
The story of the Wilde Sau always amazes me how they flew unmodified 109s and 190s at night and tried to shoot down allied aircraft. They were suboptimal for flying in clouds, let alone in blackout conditions over Germany.
‘Eagles Wings’ is the autobiography of Hajo Hermann, the originator of Wilde Sau. An excellent read covering his whole career and he describes night missions against British bombers. If I remember correctly he preferred ex bomber pilots like himself to fly the missions because of their experience in instrument flying at night.
Quite surprised these planes didn't have heaters. Maybe my memory is playing tricks on me, but pretty sure Lindbergh in The Spirit of St Louis references turning on the cockpit heater in his DH 4 mail plane--a WWI open cockpit single engine bomber.
I think the "Wendehorizont" was very usefull, because it allows the Pilot to concentrate on one Instrument, crossing Cloud-Layers in Combat Situations. It's not intended for continous non-visual Navigation. Planes intended for that, had additional Instrumentation.
Another great video Greg! Thank you! Early in the video you happened to mention the Michelin Man, so I'm going way off topic here. But just by happenstance I watched a video about the Michelin star restaurant ratings by Max Miller on his Tasting History channel. I'm not trying to sway people from your channel but this is about history and as a WWII armchair historian, that story delves into something I never knew. I hope you, and others, watch it because it captures a glimpse into that horrible conflict in a way never expected.
GREG, did you notice the two level Spitfire foot rests, high for pulling Gs? Have you looked at wartime canopies, the curved panels can have fairly poor vision quality. Re. the vertical compass outputs, the U.S. Navy used a lot of Kollsman direct reading (via linkage) vertical compasses with twin bar heading bugs. They appear on e-bay regularly and work independently, the direct reading Mk X is typical. Thanks for the great work.
Outstanding as always Greg!! I knew you'd pivot to the 190 since the discussion was on human factors and I remember distinctly from your earlier 190 videos the exception cockpit design. That had quite and impact on me since it's typically not a point of discusssion. Comment - I'm wondering if perhaps it was easier to design a good cockpit for the FW190 since it was primarily electrically operated. It'd be far easier to place electrical switches where desired for reduced pilot workload as opposed to the mechanical contrivances like chains and pulleys on much of the P47. Would you agree?
@09:40 I've just seen Hardthrasher's Battle of Britain series, this would explain why Eagle Week required clear skys. I didn't realise that instruments varied that much, all I'd heard before was that a shipment of Martlets acquired by the British (originally destined for France) had to have the the instruments changed. But I'm not a pilot so the details would have meant very little to me.
I'm happy with this video, you are improving. You make very interesting videos, but often they are to long. Keep it going, I'm very interested in the insight you give us who are so interested in this history of aviation. Thank you!
I flew the DC-6, go check out the gear and flap levers on this aircraft. The both look the same and both move the same directions for up and down and they are separated by about 8 inches on the back of the center console. One is painted red for gear and the other was either yellow or white. Gear was in the center of the console and the flap was about 8 inches right of it.
Excellent video as always 🤝. Just a quick comment on the German artificial horizon combo instrument. That ring around it, or frame, could be turned. You notice „Fest“ and „Los“ inscriptions on it. Those could be loosely translated as „Locked“ and „Released“. In „Los“ position the horizon can move freely. In „Fest“ position the horizon would return to horizontal position and stay locked there.
Posted 5 hours ago, count me in! Can't wait for the same video presentation on Soviet fighters!! For no particular reason other than to see how poorly they would compare. The American video was very pleasant to watch.
From a conversation i had with a guy who flew Hurricanes my understanding is that the cockpit was often very hot due to the coolant pipes for the engine running down the side of the cockpit to the radiator more or less under the pilots seat. This probably went some way towards the choice to not employ a heater.
Had a couple of flights in an L-39. It had the same taxi controls he mentioned for the Spitfire (except hydraulic vs. pneumatic). It's sooo weird for someone used to nosewheel steering and toe brakes. Damned near ground looped the thing because a full boot of rudder did nothing while the wingtip was headed for a fence. When I remembered the handbrake thing, I panicked and grabbed a big ol' handful of brake. The PIC didn't let me taxi for a while after that....
The inclusion of heaters is an interesting point of conversation. Because of how they are set up in GA aircraft, I typically don't use aircraft heaters for fear of carbon monoxide poisoning should there be something wrong with the system. I'll typically just bundle up for winter flying. Your point about instrument failure is something I hadn't really considered before while flying the 190 in simulation. Aside from kinetic damage it just really was not an issue in the sims, however, I could absolutely see that being a real problem in real life where random failures can happen. Still; the ergonomics and human factors success of the FW is easily decernable even in the sims.
I agree, the Fw190 is a really nice plane to fly in the sims, but I don't think it's advantages are fully realized when everyone has HOTAS because that negates the drawbacks of many of it's competitors.
The 109 E3 and E4 had constant speed propellors from the start. They used an electric motor to change pitch, controlled by a thumb switch on the throttle. The Spitfire and Hurricane went through three different types of propellor before all were finally completed with CS props.
Absolutely not. In fact your post sort of makes it sound like you don't know what a constant speed prop is. I really suggest you watch my video on that subject.
Ive only been an aircraft engineer for 34 years, working on everything from Piper Cubs to A330s, including a great many aircraft with constant speed props. Im very aware of how they work. The Hurricane started with the Watts fixed-pitch then moved to the two-position prop (both props served in the Battle of France) then the CS prop. The earlier models of Merlin couldnt accept CS props unless they were reworked by RR. The Spitfire had a choice of DH or Rotol props. The 109 started with the fixed pitch then briefly with two-position before finally settling on the electric pitch change prop, the VDM, which was based on a licensed Hamilton Standard prop. This was altered to electric pitch change , from oil governed pitch change, by the Germans after they decided to get away from manually selected pitch units. This was to coincide with fuel injection and other developments like the FW's Kommandgerat, as they wanted a fully automated cockpit. not all of that development worked, but enough of it did for the RLM to accept it by 1940.
When you talk about the 109, will you dip into the argument regarding cockpit width and how it affects the ability to impart lateral leverage on the stick? I know you spoke of it previously regarding brown's assessment of 'effective roll rates' or however that was phrased.
That amount of development from just 1930 to 1940 is like going from the telegraph, to the fax, then to dialup modems and finally broadband internet in 10 years!
Well, you have to understand the peculiar British way of doing things. The best navigational compasses available were from the Navy, so they used Navy compasses. Same way they ended up with tanks built with rivets, and used a water cooled machine gun through the entirety of WW2. They just go with what they know.
Another great video Greg! I remember reading about the Hurricanes bobbing up and down after taking off because the pilots were busy pumping the handle to raise the undercarriage. Spitfire pilots were constantly having to change hands on the control column to perform similar tasks during take off. I also remember reading that German pilots after looking at captured examples, realised why they were able to jump British pilots, because they were so involved in engine and propeller management as well as maintaining flight position within their section and squadron. This last part changed with the adoption of the finger four formation learnt from the Germans. Mark from Melbourne Australia 🇦🇺
The 109 pilots had hellish manual variable pitch propellers far, far worse to cope with in combat. Every climb or descent or speed change cut or over-reved the engine losing power or threatening engine failure. Even worse their prop’s actuation was awful electric not hydraulic. Master race types would tend to boast superiority a bit too much.
@@givenfirstnamefamilyfirstn3935 That part I was not aware of. I do however remember reading a seasoned pilot's report stating that they would change the propeller pitch to fine (I think) in combat in order to raise the rate of fire from the machine guns. This was due to some of the machine guns firing through the propeller arc and having interrupter gear similar to WWI aircraft. Just how this altering of the prop pitch during combat affected engine performance and service life I can't say?
On the Hurricane constant speed prop, some received Spitfire units, IIRC, due to shortages. These are distinguishable as the spinner is slightly oversized. I think that's the right way round, anyway.
For holding a course over a distance, the compass was used, on which a desired heading could be set (two white lines) iirc. The DG was really only used to orient the aircraft when in manoeuvring flight when the compass was liable to turning and acceleration errors, and didn't require to pilot to go "eyes-down" to the same degree he had to when referring to the compass, or, of course, when instrument flying.
The Soviets used the handbrake-and-push system UNTIL THE END OF THE COLD WAR... the Yak-52 that David Gilmour (yes, THAT Pink Floyd) had such a system; Magnar recently posted a video about flying the bird.
Let's not forget the size of the cockpit. I am literally not allowed to sit in the cockpit of a Spitfire, because at 6'2" I am too tall to fit. My grandfather was rejected by the RAF as a pilot for being too short. (And also for being unwilling to be ordered around and unable to walk in a straight line. They found other uses for him.)
Great video here Greg. There are several prototype pusher prop fighters but no real production craft, the only one I can think of is the SAAB J21 from Sweden. Could have a pusher fighter been competitive or were drawbacks from the layout insurmountable during that era.
A pusher could have been competitive. In fact the question makes me wonder if you watched the video all the way to the very end, where there is indeed a cockpit from a plane with a pusher prop.
@@GregsAirplanesandAutomobiles Well, like 99.99% of people I can't ID a plane from a single photo of its cockpit interior, no need to shit on your Patreon supporters here Greg. Also, the 335 was a push-pull, I was referring to pusher aircraft
@@ivanthemadvandal8435I’m not Greg but I’ll try and answer. There just aren’t big enough advantages to the pusher design IMHO. 1. Most of the fighters of the era were tail draggers, due to the poor conditions of the runways they were using at the time. A pusher has less inherent prop to ground clearance unless you make the landing gear especially long, which has its own set of design challenges in terms of stability, packaging, and durability. 2. With a single engine the pusher design becomes especially challenging as where do you put the tail? Do you use canards? Canards were poorly understood at this time. 3. The loss of climb performance. Propellors mounted forward of the wings produce lift as a byproduct of torque; or for the layman, the prop wash over the wings produces a substantial amount of lift as a function of throttle. More throttle, more lift. I cannot understate how dramatic this effect can be, you can witness it firsthand at air shows where performers will hang a propellor driven airplane at near zero airspeed, well below the stall speed of the wing and remain airborne. This also effects take off performance to a degree. 4. In addition to providing more lift, the prop wash also makes the elevator and rudder on conventional tail aircraft more effective at slower speed ->again this is important when you’re talking about low time pilots as it makes the airplane easier to fly on and off the bad airstrips (or aircraft carriers), they were using. 5. Lastly it’s just a simpler airplane to design. Simple good. Edit: Pushers start to become much more worth it when in twin engine configuration. A push pull design for example benefits from 1 frontal disc in terms of drag, compared to a conventional twin that has 3. In essence for the same drag (frontal area), as a single engine airplane, you get the benefits of a second engine.
I own a Europa mono wheel a two seat British designed homebuilt kit plane. In keeping with British tradition, the flaps and gear have the same lever, this to simplify and avoid gear up landing for if one fails to drop the flaps the nose blocks the view of the runway on approach hence a clue you forgot something. I have found when many pilots get used to bad ergonomics and they reject the idea of fixing the issue. The Europa has a control stick, throttle and gear/flaps lever in center console and to the right of those is the brake handle. It's rather awkward having the brake handle on the far right of the throttle and a few pilots have bumped the throttle reaching the brake handle. I fixed the problem mounting a motorcycle style brake handle on the stick, it's perfect now, but many Europa pilots are accustomed to the brake handle and will not change it.
@@GregsAirplanesandAutomobiles It really is, but like a Grumman Wildcat it requires respect in the ground handling. Good speed for a low fuel burn, between 2 and 5 gallons per hour 140 to 170 kt depending on alt. (It's turbocharged) it likes grass fields.
This was great as far as it went but the most important human factor in my opinion- since it is of primary importance in air combat- is cockpit visibility. I’ve often wondered why so many WW2 era aircraft had canopies that blinded pilots to the rear. It’s not just a matter of technology because some like the Zero and FW 190 did have this even very early in the war though certainly the late war P 51 and P 47 bubble canopies were supreme
Brilliant as usual. Are you going to do similar type analysis of B-24/17/29's? I know fighter pilots had a lot to contend with, but it seems like the pilot and copilot of a B-17 was a challenge as well. The B-29 was ( I would expect) an even greater challenge not only for the pilot/co pilot, but the flight engineer. Any thoughts? Sorry I know you are busy and may not be able to respond. Thanks
Whether a cockpit heater is installed depends on the guy in the Air Ministry writing the Specification, who probably last flew in combat in a Camel or a SE 5a. The Designer will only put in what he has to. So RobofGabriola (below) is spot on with his reasoning.
BAAAAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA GREG!!! That butthurt report is sorely needed nowadays. I laughed really loud when I read through that. Thank you for putting that at the end of your video (the rest of which was fantastic, as well, thank you for that, too.)
Gosh I love this content even though so much of the technical stuff is beyond me. Still hoping for a demystification video of the Mosquito! And as secondary question if any of the resident experts here can offer an opinion: if the USA had wanted to make variants of the P38 is there any type of mission that the mosquito could do that a p38 couldn’t theoretically be modified to do as well? Thanks if anyone offers an opinion. Sorry about it being off topic. I’m just posting while listening to the video……and smiling. Thanks for existing Greg.
Hi. I flew the Hurricane, Spitfire and Me-109 as a test pilot and airshow pilot. I have a few comments: You mention the omission of cockpit heaters as an oversight, since they were not needed in earlier open-cockpit designs. I think that misses the point. Optional devices, such as heaters, were omitted due to weight, cost and complexity. A wise airplane designer once said that he throws all of the optional parts into the air, and those that come down are too heavy. The undercarriage control is a perfect example. The Hurri and Spit designs require the pilot to change hands immediately after takeoff to retract the undercarriage. A modern test pilot thinks, "Dumb design!" Remove the cowling, and the designer's thinking becomes clearer. The hydraulic pump is on the lower, right, aft part of the Merlin. The shortest, lightest, cheapest, and easiest-to-build solution is to run the hydraulics straight aft into the cockpit. The pilot's job wasn't made easier, but the fighter was made incrementally lighter. Lighter = better, even if the pilot's job is harder. That IS ergonomics in the 1930's. Likewise, tailwheel locks; best left out of the design unless the aeroplane needs it. The Spit and Hurry don't by virtue of their CG location with regard to the wheels. The Bf-109 had a comparatively VERY heavy tailwheel load. Omitting a tailwheel lock was not an option, so it justified the weight/cost/complexity. Speaking of which, the Bf-109s tailwheel lock is a great example of a bad idea; situated on the left canopy rail where movement of the throttle will cause one's forearm to accidentally dislodge it. (Ask me how I know!) The inherent ergonomic limitations of operating systems on these fighters represent the 1930's state of the art. A similar example of human factors is cockpit field of view. The Spit was utterly blind for takeoff and landing . The Hurri was better, with the cockpit raised up high on the fuselage. Was this an ergonomic decision? Nope. The Hurricane pilot sits higher to allow for a better depression angle over the nose for deflection shooting. The benefits for takeoff and landing were incidental. The design thinking was to use EVERY BIT of the pilot's ability if it made the airplane an ounce lighter. So much to say...Great video!
Finally, someone with something other than “I’m a DCS expert pilot”. The first time I climbed into a T-6 I realized how exorbitantly different, and radically unforgiving, the real world is.
Love the T-6 though. ;-)
Thanks for the insights.
Bravo. I'd rather see more effectively in the air, than on the ground. Even over cognitive instrument processing time. Because in the air 'Other Human Factors' are trying 2 kill me. Fun 'Fact.'
What if you crash and die in the ground, because you were unable to take off due to the poor visibility? Just because it was state of the art at the time, doesnt mean it was ergonomic or couldn't have been done better...
Overall great comment about the reasoning for design decisions that may be unintuitive/harder to use, but I can't help myself from nitpicking. It's decidedly NOT ergonomic design, it's (as you correctly point out later) ergonomic benefits being sacrificed in order to achieve other performance benefits; weight/cost to produce/etc..
The early models of the Fw190 were quite well heated... though this was unintentional 😂
I'm glad you mentioned the ammo counters, it's amazing how hard it is to try to keep track of ammo in a sim. I can only imagine what'd it be like with the pressure of real combat.
Most people in video games have trouble keeping track and they have a digital value displayed directly on their screen. I've flown my P-47s enough that at this point I have a pretty strong intuition of how much ammo I have left without checking, so it's not like a lack of ammo counters was unworkable, just unnecessary.
I am just started trying to learn how to fly in DCS and on Sunday I was doing a mission. I locked up 2 MiG-21s that were comimg in fast, already pretty close and fired an AMRAAM at each one and then broke to try and stay out of the merge. As I turned around I started hearing their weird noise and my HUD symbology changed and I was like, "WTF am I out of AMRAAMs?" Yes. Yes I was. I can't even keep track of that with a little blip in front on me that says 3MRM, 2MRM, 1MRM.
I ended up turning back around, locking the last MiG with my 9X, but it went after flares and I ended up merged. Let's just say I haven't mastered keeping visual contact with bandits (or really anything if I'm honest) and while I was looking for the guy, I flew into the side of a hill.
A lot of pilots were still doing the "last 50 rounds with tracer" trick so they knew when they were at the limit of their ammo and had just enough to try to deal with what they were currently doing (or run home if they'd just finished dealing with it).
Ammo counters in aircraft are one those funny little things, which became so basic that nobody ask why they are there, but when it comes to someone's favourite plane lacking them, then it's suddenly unnecessary waste of space. I don't think I've read a lot of pilot stories, but cases where a pilot fights for a long time to get into position to fire, only to find his guns empty, are not that uncommon.
I recall seeing a documentary regarding George Beurling, a Canadian flying with the RAF. During a training flight (gunnery) he told his instructor how many holes he put in the target, and how many he had left. He turned out to be correct on both counts.
"group of people offended by facts" Thank you sir!
Brilliant insights
LOL, Greg is selective as always to avoid offending the USAAF and USN fanboys.
“Just because you're offended, doesn't mean you're right.”
― Ricky Gervais
Eric Brown noted in one of his books that the birdcage noses on German bombers were not only optically poor with lots of distortion from the curved plexiglass they also had a nasty tendency to fog. I'm pretty sure it was in wings of the Luftwaffe but I don't remember which chapter. In any case a blurry or foggy windscreen isn't just an inconvenience it also takes a psychological toll. Humans are visually oriented and blurry windows are both maddening and distracting. A foggy windshield drives me nuts when I'm driving a car; I can't imagine flying a plane with a fogged windscreen is any less annoying.
Remember Yeager saying an old Chief Mechanic use to smear(or rub) Prell Shampoo on the windscreen an he swore by it.
Try riding a performance (or any) motorcycle on a cold day without a fog shied/pinlock visor
@@moss8448
It works on scuba masks too!
@TheRealNeill
Every German bomber was designed to be dive bomber. You need good visiblity for that.
The fogging was a big issue in the Heinekel 111 .
Little known fact, look at the cockpit of one immediately above the pilots seat.
There is a sliding hatch.to open on approach if the cabin fogs up, amazingly the pilots seat and primary controls all elevate on pulling a large lever , leaving the pilots head just above the fuselage ,enabling him to land it like a 1920’s open cockpit airframe.
Just another reason to love the FW190. It's my favorite of the non-U.S. prop fighters. There is elegant design everywhere in that airplane.
It was definitely a dangerous fighter. Many pilots didn't really like it. One thing is bc the cockpit was hot. The way the fuselage was designed, the heat from the engine made it real hot. Kurt Tank tried to address it, but it never went away.
It's lacklustre high altitude performance was never really sorted though, until the Dora 9 which was too late to make a difference.
@@franktreppiedi2208 sorry for being a bit late, but your comment reminded me of Lavochkin and his La-5 and La-7, both of which had cockpit temperature problems among other things.
If I remember correctly, the temperature within a closed cockpit varied from 40-45 to 55 degrees, honestly can't remember the specific numbers, sorry.
Most of the circa 1939-40 Spitfire and Hurricane pilots were transitioning out of aircraft that didn't even HAVE retractable gear, flaps nor variable pitch props: They had NOTHING to compare cockpit layout to.
I think the discussion is not how happy the pilot is, but will the cockpit help kill them ?
Lol @@francesconicoletti2547, "help"
As an engineer, ergonomics is always on my mind. Attention to detail is key. Two engineers can design similar things, and people will know one engineer is better, but not be sure why exactly. The difference will be in the engineer who paid close attention to details and just an all around better refined design.
Aircraft ergonomics is one of these examples. Some engineers get it and do a great job, most do not.
I also experienced this in combat with other vehicles. When strapped in, we couldn't reach half the switches on the dash, and so we'd have to ride around not strapped in. whoever designed that dash needed to be fired, there was no excuse for such a massive flaw. We were constantly modifying our vehicles to work better and be practical. I helped give feedback to many companies regarding their equipment and its many flaws. Some engineers take the feedback well and improve their product, others take offense and refuse to fix their mistakes. If you're an engineer, don't be the latter. Welcome feedback from people who actually rely upon what you design.
I'm glad you're covering such factors in aircraft.
I used to fly survey, most companies have a proprietary display. With what some engineer figures is correct. Leica had the altitude commands different from aircraft standards. Ie: command bars up fly down, extended centre line a lovely curly cue until 2miles back etc... The engineers response was "well it makes sense to me" these maybe brilliant men, but garbage engineers
My career was in IT. Everyone uses our products these days; we have all experienced the results of poor design and lack of response to user feedback. While software failures don't usually have life and death consequences it is becoming more common.
I just fail to understand Engineers who resist user feedback. The Engineer might have "reasons", but those reasons don't matter if the product will not sell because it's unusable or fatal.
@@ndenise3460Bit silly not to follow aircraft standards if that is where the equipment is to be used ? Makes sense to that bloke but no one else and then the company wonder why sales are dropping?
Mark from Melbourne Australia 🇦🇺
Similar things apply to buildings and furniture. Things should come to hand easily. Sometimes it can't be helped so for example a light switch is placed as close as possible to the entrance of the room. Later on when more furniture has been placed in the room, getting to said light switch can be tricky. I had an example of this at work just the other week and had to hunt around for the light switch.
Mark from Melbourne Australia 🇦🇺
@@markfryer9880 Yes!
If you watch film of Hurricanes or Spitfires doing a scramble take-off you may see the wings rocking as they swap hands on the stick to raise the wheels.
Light bulb! I never put two and two together.
Followed by pitching as they pump the gear up by hand.
They got a hydraulic pump early on.
We used to laugh at first-time Spitfire pilots when they porpoise on takeoff as they change hands.
@@rednaughtstudios
Only one the very earliest models.
Glen Curtis being a long time pilot and designer from the dawn of aviation putting a heater in his aircraft makes perfect sense. MAKE the time to go to his museum in NY.
That British compass was highly accurate and widely used finding itself mounted in land vehicles in North Africa. Flying over water or driving through oceans of sand that thing kept many men alive and they were mass produced to a high tolerance. Pretty sure their war time manufacturing office was like 'Good enough, slap them on everything and make do. Next bloody problem!'😫
The ones mounted on open top vehicles always looked like Honey Pot jars that Winnie the Pooh had to me.😊
You da Man Greg.👍🏻
Wow, thanks sadwings. I really do appreciate that contribution and your comment as well.
I'm having an absolutely fantastic day. I got started paying attention to Human Factors / Ergonomics a bunch of years ago when trying to design and build decent work station areas for multiple computers with multiple monitors. The best references that I've found have been NASA and of course the Human Factors Statistical data. I've run into several instances where the design started not with where is the bet position for accessibility for, pardon the expression, altitude challenged personnel, but with where is it easiest to install this required device. Often the relocation of the switch from 7 feet above the deck to a better location is non-trivial, requiring outside assistance to run new wiring. Other times it merely requires a bit of outside the box thinking.
I think that of all the designers of the era, Kurt Tank, was the one who never forgot what it was like to be in the air in the middle of an emergency and worked hard to ensure that the emergency order of operations was simplified. As Juan Browne is fond of saying: Aviate, Navigate, Communicate.
Thanks for a great series on ergonomics and design.
Prof. Tank is known to have flown his own aircraft, even in combat (although management put a stop to the combat flights as soon as they found out).
For many years I was a computer consultant and you might think the ergonomics is not that important, you would be wrong. putting entry field out of order confuses the entry clerk and leads to mistakes. putting the button that you want a person choose in the wrong place can really screw things up when they press the wrong button. These are just two examples in office situations that can lead to disasters.
I remember looking at the report of the reasons for the Three Mile Island Nuclear Disaster and one of there main points was the design of the control boards making it difficult for the operators to fiqure out what was going wrong.
I’d imagine cockpit heating was seen as having significant drawbacks. If done with a heater core, as in cars, it would add another failure point for the engine cooling system. If done with ducted hot air, it would compromise the firewall and add to the chances of CO in the cockpit.
It’s just unbelievable that the Germans were able to fly daylight fighters on the Wilde Sau missions against the night bombing raids. They certainly weren’t notably successful, but the sheer courage and skill required boggle the mind.
The US navy's standardisation of instrument layout made a huge change in reducing.training. Most cockpits looked like someone loaded.A shotgun with instruments, and fired at the panel
The Paxuent (spelling?) fighter conference report is illuminating. Lots of the navy pilots were pretty scathing about many cockpit and instrument layouts.
I fly a lot of 60's , 70's and 80s corporate turboprops. They have the standard 6 but with collins, arc, king, sperry, different nav systems etc. Crosshair vs handlebars FDs switchology etc...... My company spends about 500k per Aircraft to standardize on Garmin 1000 setups.
You avoided perhaps the most important HF issue - visibility - something that was a priority to fighter pilots. The FW 190 vis was less than ideal looking over the control panel, although vis behind was good. The Me109 vis was of course horrible, also the early P-51's with bird cage canopy. Late model Spit IXs, XVIs had a bubble canopy, increasing vis considerably over earliest ones.
that's in another video on this subject.
@@GregsAirplanesandAutomobiles who knew. I suggest that a video like this provide upfront an overview (good instructional design) of prioritized ergonomic and HF issues. The learner may therefore see the bigger and more accurate picture. Then identifiy the limited issues you'd like to cover in this video and label it accordingly. I hope that is helpful.
I agree with the castoring tailwheel issue and pneumatic brakes (often mushy). When scrambling large #s of WWII fighters with limited fwd vis, proper ground handling was often lacking and accidents did occur, but the brakes/tailwheel problem was more of a systems design issue than ergonomic one.
Cheers.
This is PURE GOLD. Noone mentions these factors although they did play a major role.
Just last week I answered a "which fighter would you rather fly?" with "The more comfortable one". Some of those fighters were about as comfy as a steamer trunk.
British pilots were amazed at how spacious the Thunderbolt was.
@@raypurchase801 I remember an anecdote of some pilots (don't remember where from) saying that if you flew a P-47 and someone got on your six you could just run around the cockpit to dodge the gunfire, lol
@@MDzmitry Haha!
I’d like to see a similar episode on Japanese aircraft. Thanks for another great show!
Greg hits the spot with another pair of fascinating and original videos. I thought you might have mentioned the Mosquito as an example of how to absolutely get everything wrong in cockpit ergonomics.
I was thinking the same thing. Fuel controls essentially behind the seat, right handed flap and gear handle each with unique lock mechanism, center mounted gun sight in a side by side seat configuration etc. Human factors even extend to the navigator with the radio placed behind him requiring him to twist 180 degrees to operate it.
I'll talk about the Mossie at some point. That one is quite easy to do because the DCS sim models it so well. Finding good cockpit photos is a big problem with WW2 airplanes. I didn't talk about it in this series because multi-engine and multi-crew brings in a whole new set of issues.
@@GregsAirplanesandAutomobiles DCS does it great. Lovely airplane, but flying it in the sim is where I really noticed how a cockpit design can affect operating an aircraft. Part of that is obviously due to you having to do the work of two men. I was going to mention fuel gauges as well, but I assume the navigator would have assisted in keeping an eye on those. Excited for that video whenever it comes!
I guess de Havilland had to get something wrong with the Mosquito. It did have fantastic heating though.
On a recent business trip to London I managed to get to the de Havilland Aircraft Museum in Hatfield where there are three Mosquitos, including the prototype. One of the docents asked if I wanted to see inside. Did not have to think about my answer. Definitely worth a visit if you’re in the area.
@@GregsAirplanesandAutomobiles I'll be sure to be watching when that video comes out.
What an insightful presentation on an under-discussed topic, I hope you continue to expand this series! Human factors is something so rarely mentioned and yet while pilots didn’t fight, every time they went up in the air they had to manage the plane and live within the system the engineers had made!
I'm with you here. Human Factors in aircraft design can be quite fascinating. I'd like to see Greg cover HF from a maintainability perspective.
My father had quite a few hours in the Spit MkIX and would completely agree with your assessment of the pneumatic brakes. Another problematic factor with pneumatics were any leaks in the system due to wear or battle damage meant a landing with no brakes.
I know that you didn’t go into the 109, but my father was terribly disappointed when he had an opportunity to fly the Buchon. During the cockpit checkout it came to his attention that the canopy could not be closed with his 6’2” frame in the cockpit even without a seat pack on! The 109 cockpit is like being wedged into a F1 racer- I don’t know how anyone got out of it if it was out of control.
I think I saw somewhere that the Germans had devised a specific way of bailing out of the 109 which involved grabbing hold of handles installed for this purpose, crawling out of the cockpit to the left side and pushing your body downwards from the side of the fuselage to avoid being hit by the horizontal stabilizer struts of the early models. Of course this required that your arms and hands weren't too badly injured.
I remember a TV programme where a British Battle of Britain veteran was given the chance to sit in a ME109. His comment was that he would have been much more aggressive if he had realised how poor the visibility was from the German plane due to the close fitting and heavily framed canopy design.
@@Gloomendoom
I saw something similar where a Battle of Britain Memorial Flight pilot had the opportunity to sit in a '109. Having spent many hours flying the Spit and Hurricane he was not impressed by the cramped conditions and poor view in the '109 (I seem to remember it was an F-4 version) as well as the heavy and clunky cockpit canopy. He did quite like the cockpit layout and instruments though.
Well, I’ve had a different experience. I am 193cm tall (I don’t know how much is that, 6 foot 5 maybe?) and I’ve had the privilege of sitting in a restored 109G and fiddling with controls.
I’ve found the cockpit to be just the right size for me. The seat is very low, almost on the floor, comparable to sitting in a sports car with a very low seat.
There was enough space for stick movement, when pulled all the way back the stick would be in my belly, lol.
I’ve had a few cm between my shoulders and the fuselage/canopy frame so I could easily “check my six”.
Also, plenty of space for my big head when the canopy was closed (Erla).
I’ve found the 190 cockpit to be much more crammed than the 109 pit.
No floor in the Hurricane also meant punctured wing tanks with burning gasoline sloshing around inside the wing, vented out to the cockpit. Many pilots suffered greatly because of this.
Sad.
Another great documentary, thanks Greg.
Between you and Chris over at Military Aviation History I think I have learned more about the engineering and operation of historic aircraft then I did in the previous 40 years. This is YT at its best IMHO.
Really cool and agree on the Hurricanes compass it’s a bugger to use in flight! However I disagree on the brakes I find them quite easy to use and very much like the chippy! Also the undercarriage and flap mixer box is so easy however to a modern day pilot they would not understand it or why! Transitions from the throttle to the gear up is easy and no problem even if you forget the safety catch it’s easy just has to be done before about 110 mph otherwise the aerodynamic load on the gear doors may not allow them retract! Just my observations from flying a MK1 👍👍
the radiator under the Hurricane filled the cockpit with heat because the Hurricane had no floor and the heat wafted up from below. It has been mentioned in numerous memoirs that it was stifingly hot in Summer. It also had a fatal flaw in that the wingroot fuel tank would blast into the cockpit if set alight in combat because there was nothing between the fuel tank and the pilot's feet. Incidentally, none of the prewar fighters had any credible jettison system for their canopies until combat experience in Spain compelled the Germans and others to fit canopy jettison systems. the 109 had a spring fitted to it's canopy and the entire rear section would detach to allow the pilot to get out. the Spitfire and Hurricane had a jettison system fitted later that allowed the canopy to be unpinned with the tug of a red ball and slide back fully.
Fw190 canopy had two small explosives to blast it clear for pilot egress ?
The 190 had a 20mm cannon cartridge to blow off the canopy because they found that it couldn't be opened manually at high speed as it would be kept in place by air pressure. Same for other high speed aircraft. Once the cannon shell fired, the jet of gas from it would lift the canopy off its rails and clear it away.
Robert Johnson wrote about getting trapped in the P-47 cockpit because the canopy was jammed after his plane got shot up. This forced him to fly the badly damaged P-47 home, to his amazement.
The Hurricane burned a lot of pilots due to hits through its unprotected header fuel tank and firewall.
In regards to the Hurri radiator filling the cockpit with heat, I recall my wingman saying once that he could see shimmers of heat billowing from my cockpit when I had the canopy open. On a hot summer day, it felt like sitting on a barbecue. Our Mk IV Hurri did ground attack duty in North Africa. My sympathies to the poor crews.
I'd love to see a series on this for the more common twin engine planes - Mosquito, Bf110, P-38, maybe even a Ki-102?
More cockpit space, double the engines and fuel tanks compared to regular fighters, often a second (or even third!) crewmember to split workload and controls with. Would certainly be an interesting watch.
Pilots blacking out due to high G is a pretty fundamental aspect of 'human factors' & where the pilot's legs go is a major factor where inflatable trousers are absent.
7.56 is the Standard Blind Flying Instrument Panel. It was used in fighters, bombers and trainers. It was needed because the RAF was a night fighting force. The annual Air Exercises starting in 1924 included night fighting practice. The last one in 1938 was entirely at night. It used 1300 aircraft, 700 searchlights, & 53000 personnel.
Thanks Greg. Your 190 video blew my mind before. I need to revisit the the prop video too! Gotta brush up on constant speed.🐿
The ammunition counters on the german and Italian aircraft were timed off the guns as they recoiled. When the guns were reloaded, the crew zeroed the counters so that they corresponded to full ammo tanks. Even half filling a tank got a matching white line on the counters. They were deliberately placed in the pilots sight line so he knew how much he had left.
12:40 "Easily offended by facts " hahaha.
Good line, I'm going to use that next chance I get.
“Just because you're offended, doesn't mean you're right.”
Ricky Gervais
Just a word about the P Type RAF compass. The way it was designed to be used was not to move the clamped ring to find your heading. The idea was that you moved the ring to the heading you wanted and then turned the aircraft so that the north pointing part underneath aligned with the two parallel Lins above. As you observed it was an instrument that was more use in a ship or maybe a transport aircraft. Suffice to say that on the Tiger Moth I used to fly on pleasure flights we kept the P Type as a piece of history and had an E2B panel mounted compass fitted as well.
This idea of having a compass where north wasn't quite where you expected it to be appears to be British as it was perpetuated in the post war Smiths Flight System where north was indicated by a pointer that could be anywhere on the dial depending on how the pilot set the desired track.
Kurt Tank was apparently a pretty good pilot, and an electrical enginer, so it's no surprise that he put in these human factors to ease the work load.
Cheers from the Pacific West Coast of Canada.
You mentioned the tailwheel on the Hurricanes and Spits, and I think the FW190's tailwheel was a clever design. AFAIK, the pilot locked the otherwise free-castering tailwheel by pulling back slightly on the stick. This feature allowed the pilot to lock and unlock the wheel as needed during taxiing without having to take a hand off either the throttle or stick.
Thanks for another superb video.
One thing that I don't think anyone mention at all, that I think should be included into human factors consideration, is the colours of instrument panels. Not that there are any one design that is superior to all, but if the panels are in contrasting colours to the instruments, it's easier to locate them with the smallest glance. If they are in similar colours to the gauges, I personally feel it is more difficult to locate them by glance, but easier to identify what gauges are showing what information.
Also, though I cannot empirically prove, I feel that an another human factors win for German seating position is the relative ease of manipulating side or wall-mounted controls. I felt it incredibly strong when I climbed onto the cockpit of a Meteor F.8 from Midlands Air Museum. Once I sat inside, I could not really comfortably operate (or even see) the controls on the sides.
When we design automobiles, we usually use percentile models not just for checking whether they fit inside the vehicle, but for checking if there are any controls that are technically within reach, but is not intuitive to manipulate. When I am seating lower and my legs stretched further forward, my upper body seems generally better relaxed, including the shoulders. Anyone who's been inside a really low-slung car, like an Elise or most McLaren stuffs, would (hopefully) know what I am talking about.
Also, I'd suggest, of all the planes that were developed during the war and/or numerically close to, or is, irrelevant in WW2, the de Havilland Hornet would be among the best out there.
Useful, I doubt whether the anthropometric data on percentiles were available before WWII. What data were collected during the war I don't know.
Thanks LV, that's a good comment.
Auto engineers would do well to put the passenger seat on an angled mount as it move back it moves down vs making it 3" taller than the driver. I smash my head getting in whenever I go along with my wife in the minivan
I’m surprised that the twin-step rudder pedals on the Spitfire weren’t discussed. Maybe I missed it. The upper step raising the pilots feet relative to his head thus helping mitigate the effects of high G forces.
The "Butthurt Form" is pure joy! Great touch. Keep up the awsome work. Thanks
Hello!! Greeting's from Scotland!! Talking about science or engineering subjects shouldn't involve offending anybody!!!
I think your videos are amazing!!!! : )
I've always loved the Fw-190s in DCS, because (compared to others) the cockpit just makes sense. While I enjoy the flight models of other aircraft, I'm always brought back to the 190 by the human factors. It's just more enjoyable to fly when you never have to think "where is the switch for x thing?"
It's easier to feel a part of your aircraft (as any pilot should) when your cockpit is designed with you in mind.
Awesome video as always Greg! Now I’m curious about human factors in WWII bombers and transports, especially anything in the China-Burma-India theatre that had to fly The Hump ie C-46’s, C-87’s, B-29’s. Then how B-17’s and Lancasters would compare. I’m thinking back on your PBY Catalina video now and how a flight engineer position, or lack there of would impact Crew Resource Management (though I’m fully aware CRE wasn’t a thing for decades to come). I gotta imagine a B-29 had a much more crew friendly layout vs. a Do-17, Me-323, Vickers Wellington, He-177(maybe poor gauges/placement made its engine fire problems worse).
This weekend I learned that part of the reason that B-17 bombers were more accurate than B-24's in hitting their designated targets was a direct result of human engineering. The switch that allowed B-17 bombardiers to toggle their bomb load, dropping bombs individually in a timed sequence, walking their way across the target, was much easier to reach than the equivalent switch in the B-24. As a result, more B-24 bomb loads were dropped in salvo, or all at once, which made for an all-or-nothing result.
@@thomasknobbe4472 Really? could you tell us how you ran across that feature? I wasn't aware it was an option in bombers of the early war period, more a manual switch toggleing thing (but I assume B-29 had ALL the bells and whistles, due to extensive development time). I DO need to revisit the Seattle Museum of Flight again, and ask more questions instead of gawking at the pretty planes!
16:00 Wow that is an awesome period photo, an air mechanics A-la-cart of frustration. Always interesting to see any Vought or grumman design with camo and Euro roundals, brings out their stout looks.
I love Greg's objectivity and refusal to succumb to subjectivity. .
I watched the take off sequence in the cockpit of a spitfire. I loved the brake system. No idea how to work it, but it looks cool and that's all that matters
A most under-appreciated factor contributing to pilot fatigue is the upright vs. inverted Vee-engine configuration. I read a most interesting interview with a display-pilot who pointedly remarked in the stark difference on noise intrusion when flying the Buchon in comparison to the Bf 109. Another interesting technical issue: cockpit lighting. The He219 for example used a novel ultraviolet lighting system in conjunction with phosphorescent instrument displays. I wonder how many pilots and avionics technicians were victims of American radium-painted dials?
Greg, many thanks for these HF episodes. Well done. Human factors and tech writing is what I did when I worked for a defense contractor (BMY)
Greg! I am so glad you made this series of videos. I’ve been arguing stuff along these lines forever. Most people only see speed, altitude, and other similar specifications when debating airplanes. Ergonomics, cockpit, layout, and ease of flying are tremendously important.
Fascinating subject! So much technical detail. I'm a little crestfallen as these old war birds are so much more complex than I ever figured. Not having much in the way of real aircraft knowledge my self, it's humbling to get a glimpse of the vast amount I do not know.
Great video as usual. I like the comment about bombers and transports: long missions, subfreezing temperatures, on oxygen! Another one is gunsights it would seem desirable to have at least one extra hand to operate a computing gunsight in a dogfight.
Nicely done, Greg - as usual. Really old people like me can remember when automobile controls and settings could often be done by feel, as well. My 2023 vehicle has lots more stuff to control, but it's all electronic displays that have to be touched in a certain way or in the right spot, and I have to look at the display (thus taking my eye off the road and traffic in the vicinity) to make sure I'm adjusting it to the proper setting. It's a (very) slow version of the fighter pilot's dilemma in a poorly-designed cockpit. P.S. I'm not able to access the patreon stuff. I get a page with an image of a WW I British fighter at the top, and a bunch of grayed-out boxes with no images or text, so I don't know what I'm looking at. Maybe it's the age and OS of my computer, but it's unique to your site. Help?
I'm right there with you on the controls in modern cars. They are actually getting harder to use not easier. I just checked my Patreon and it's working fine. You might be seeing blanked out stuff because you are not a member (that's just a guess).
@@GregsAirplanesandAutomobiles Hi, again! Then I'm confused (again). How does one become a "member?" I'm subscribed to the site, with the little notification bell turned on. I thought patreon membership was what's required to go to the next level, but I'm not able to do anything with patreon, such as "join," because of the issue(s) that have already cropped up.
I think standardized instruments are the way to go, sure, but it is not that important as professional car and airplane testers tend to think, as a normal WW II pilot does not change airplane types very often. Only the good ones have the chance and they will hack it anyway. The bad ones are dead in a short timespan. Btw one of the best explanations of poor cockpit design is in astronaut Michael Collin’s wonderful autobiography „carrying the fire“ when he describes his test pilot experience. Very enjoyable to read!
@@rayschoch5882
Try empyting cache
Try a different browser
Try turning off ad blockers.
Hope this helps!
Great that you cover these so often overlooked or ignored aspects!
Greg your channel is a gem and truly a service to humanity keeping history alive!
Every video from Greg is a gem. As a passionate model builder and armchair historian I thank you sir for your dedication, hard work and commitment to producing these wonderful and well informed videos.
Great series. This is an interesting topic that would never have been covered by legacy media. THANK YOU GREG!
I don't remember if you covered it or I read it somewhere else, but the 190 also had a differential elevator bell crank that allowed for fine movements near the center with an eccentric effect at full limits, as well as aileron control linkages designed to reduce the force required for deflection to about 8lb which was what they determined was comfortable for the average human wrist.
Thanks for the informative videos, definitely makes building 1,000 Cessna brakes on night shift go quickly.
I have covered that.
@GregsAirplanesandAutomobiles do you think there's enough information to do an Me410 deep dive?
The story of the Wilde Sau always amazes me how they flew unmodified 109s and 190s at night and tried to shoot down allied aircraft. They were suboptimal for flying in clouds, let alone in blackout conditions over Germany.
Yup, that seemed like a bad idea.
‘Eagles Wings’ is the autobiography of Hajo Hermann, the originator of Wilde Sau. An excellent read covering his whole career and he describes night missions against British bombers. If I remember correctly he preferred ex bomber pilots like himself to fly the missions because of their experience in instrument flying at night.
@@GregsAirplanesandAutomobiles They only tried it when they had jammed radar and communications from RAF countermeasures.
@@peterregan8691in total bomber pilots had more flying hours than fighter pilots.
Quite surprised these planes didn't have heaters. Maybe my memory is playing tricks on me, but pretty sure Lindbergh in The Spirit of St Louis references turning on the cockpit heater in his DH 4 mail plane--a WWI open cockpit single engine bomber.
I think the "Wendehorizont" was very usefull, because it allows the Pilot to concentrate on one Instrument, crossing Cloud-Layers in Combat Situations. It's not intended for continous non-visual Navigation. Planes intended for that, had additional Instrumentation.
Good point.
Another great video Greg! Thank you!
Early in the video you happened to mention the Michelin Man, so I'm going way off topic here. But just by happenstance I watched a video about the Michelin star restaurant ratings by Max Miller on his Tasting History channel. I'm not trying to sway people from your channel but this is about history and as a WWII armchair historian, that story delves into something I never knew.
I hope you, and others, watch it because it captures a glimpse into that horrible conflict in a way never expected.
GREG, did you notice the two level Spitfire foot rests, high for pulling Gs? Have you looked at wartime canopies, the curved panels can have fairly poor vision quality.
Re. the vertical compass outputs, the U.S. Navy used a lot of Kollsman direct reading (via linkage) vertical compasses with twin bar heading bugs. They appear on e-bay regularly and work independently, the direct reading Mk X is typical.
Thanks for the great work.
I have looked at the Spitfire foot rests. In all cases the pilot's legs are much lower than in an Fw190.
@@GregsAirplanesandAutomobiles but the 190 pilot also sits low in the fuselage with poor vis over the panel.
Outstanding as always Greg!! I knew you'd pivot to the 190 since the discussion was on human factors and I remember distinctly from your earlier 190 videos the exception cockpit design. That had quite and impact on me since it's typically not a point of discusssion.
Comment - I'm wondering if perhaps it was easier to design a good cockpit for the FW190 since it was primarily electrically operated. It'd be far easier to place electrical switches where desired for reduced pilot workload as opposed to the mechanical contrivances like chains and pulleys on much of the P47. Would you agree?
It's Winter. . I LOVE heaters. My Ducati Panigale has a battery saver plug. Thank God for electrically heated gloves and garments.
Winter? We're getting 33°C today, 36° tomorrow. It's just warming up :-)
Maybe you're in the "other" hemisphere.
@09:40 I've just seen Hardthrasher's Battle of Britain series, this would explain why Eagle Week required clear skys.
I didn't realise that instruments varied that much, all I'd heard before was that a shipment of Martlets acquired by the British (originally destined for France) had to have the the instruments changed. But I'm not a pilot so the details would have meant very little to me.
I'm happy with this video, you are improving. You make very interesting videos, but often they are to long. Keep it going, I'm very interested in the insight you give us who are so interested in this history of aviation. Thank you!
I flew the DC-6, go check out the gear and flap levers on this aircraft. The both look the same and both move the same directions for up and down and they are separated by about 8 inches on the back of the center console. One is painted red for gear and the other was either yellow or white. Gear was in the center of the console and the flap was about 8 inches right of it.
Excellent video as always 🤝. Just a quick comment on the German artificial horizon combo instrument. That ring around it, or frame, could be turned. You notice „Fest“ and „Los“ inscriptions on it. Those could be loosely translated as „Locked“ and „Released“. In „Los“ position the horizon can move freely. In „Fest“ position the horizon would return to horizontal position and stay locked there.
Thanks for all the amazing content. Really appreciate it!
Glad you keep doing all this vids. Really have learned so much about motor, Ww2 planes with your channel. Lov it.
Posted 5 hours ago, count me in! Can't wait for the same video presentation on Soviet fighters!! For no particular reason other than to see how poorly they would compare. The American video was very pleasant to watch.
@ 5:40 well there goes the 10mm socket 😂
Thanks Greg. Fine work as ever.
From a conversation i had with a guy who flew Hurricanes my understanding is that the cockpit was often very hot due to the coolant pipes for the engine running down the side of the cockpit to the radiator more or less under the pilots seat. This probably went some way towards the choice to not employ a heater.
Once the plane gets to altitude it's going to get cold. Now at low altitude, and in the summer, yes it will be warm.
Thanks for the video. Very informative!
Love the insight of the FW190 cockpit❤
Had a couple of flights in an L-39. It had the same taxi controls he mentioned for the Spitfire (except hydraulic vs. pneumatic). It's sooo weird for someone used to nosewheel steering and toe brakes. Damned near ground looped the thing because a full boot of rudder did nothing while the wingtip was headed for a fence. When I remembered the handbrake thing, I panicked and grabbed a big ol' handful of brake. The PIC didn't let me taxi for a while after that....
Years ago I read on the internut that Hurricane pilots had to be on oxygen at all alt because of exhaust fumes in the cockpit.
TYPHOONS.
The inclusion of heaters is an interesting point of conversation. Because of how they are set up in GA aircraft, I typically don't use aircraft heaters for fear of carbon monoxide poisoning should there be something wrong with the system. I'll typically just bundle up for winter flying.
Your point about instrument failure is something I hadn't really considered before while flying the 190 in simulation. Aside from kinetic damage it just really was not an issue in the sims, however, I could absolutely see that being a real problem in real life where random failures can happen. Still; the ergonomics and human factors success of the FW is easily decernable even in the sims.
I agree, the Fw190 is a really nice plane to fly in the sims, but I don't think it's advantages are fully realized when everyone has HOTAS because that negates the drawbacks of many of it's competitors.
The 109 E3 and E4 had constant speed propellors from the start. They used an electric motor to change pitch, controlled by a thumb switch on the throttle. The Spitfire and Hurricane went through three different types of propellor before all were finally completed with CS props.
Absolutely not. In fact your post sort of makes it sound like you don't know what a constant speed prop is. I really suggest you watch my video on that subject.
Ive only been an aircraft engineer for 34 years, working on everything from Piper Cubs to A330s, including a great many aircraft with constant speed props. Im very aware of how they work. The Hurricane started with the Watts fixed-pitch then moved to the two-position prop (both props served in the Battle of France) then the CS prop. The earlier models of Merlin couldnt accept CS props unless they were reworked by RR. The Spitfire had a choice of DH or Rotol props. The 109 started with the fixed pitch then briefly with two-position before finally settling on the electric pitch change prop, the VDM, which was based on a licensed Hamilton Standard prop. This was altered to electric pitch change , from oil governed pitch change, by the Germans after they decided to get away from manually selected pitch units. This was to coincide with fuel injection and other developments like the FW's Kommandgerat, as they wanted a fully automated cockpit. not all of that development worked, but enough of it did for the RLM to accept it by 1940.
When you talk about the 109, will you dip into the argument regarding cockpit width and how it affects the ability to impart lateral leverage on the stick? I know you spoke of it previously regarding brown's assessment of 'effective roll rates' or however that was phrased.
That amount of development from just 1930 to 1940 is like going from the telegraph, to the fax, then to dialup modems and finally broadband internet in 10 years!
Well, you have to understand the peculiar British way of doing things. The best navigational compasses available were from the Navy, so they used Navy compasses. Same way they ended up with tanks built with rivets, and used a water cooled machine gun through the entirety of WW2. They just go with what they know.
Another great video Greg! I remember reading about the Hurricanes bobbing up and down after taking off because the pilots were busy pumping the handle to raise the undercarriage.
Spitfire pilots were constantly having to change hands on the control column to perform similar tasks during take off. I also remember reading that German pilots after looking at captured examples, realised why they were able to jump British pilots, because they were so involved in engine and propeller management as well as maintaining flight position within their section and squadron. This last part changed with the adoption of the finger four formation learnt from the Germans.
Mark from Melbourne Australia 🇦🇺
The 109 pilots had hellish manual variable pitch propellers far, far worse to cope with in combat. Every climb or descent or speed change cut or over-reved the engine losing power or threatening engine failure. Even worse their prop’s actuation was awful electric not hydraulic.
Master race types would tend to boast superiority a bit too much.
@@givenfirstnamefamilyfirstn3935 That part I was not aware of. I do however remember reading a seasoned pilot's report stating that they would change the propeller pitch to fine (I think) in combat in order to raise the rate of fire from the machine guns. This was due to some of the machine guns firing through the propeller arc and having interrupter gear similar to WWI aircraft. Just how this altering of the prop pitch during combat affected engine performance and service life I can't say?
On the Hurricane constant speed prop, some received Spitfire units, IIRC, due to shortages. These are distinguishable as the spinner is slightly oversized. I think that's the right way round, anyway.
Informative. Well written so as to be easily understood in scope and sequence. Thanks!
For holding a course over a distance, the compass was used, on which a desired heading could be set (two white lines) iirc. The DG was really only used to orient the aircraft when in manoeuvring flight when the compass was liable to turning and acceleration errors, and didn't require to pilot to go "eyes-down" to the same degree he had to when referring to the compass, or, of course, when instrument flying.
Try a trial flying lesson, you would enjoy it.
@@givenfirstnamefamilyfirstn3935 I'm a retired commercial pilot and instructor, but thanks for the idea!
Superb, Greg. You always find a really interesting topic and execute it perfectly. And forget about the whingers, the internet brings out the worst!
Get one of the fitters to drill some holes in the exhaust manifold. After ten minutes you won't fell cold at all.
The Soviets used the handbrake-and-push system UNTIL THE END OF THE COLD WAR... the Yak-52 that David Gilmour (yes, THAT Pink Floyd) had such a system; Magnar recently posted a video about flying the bird.
Let's not forget the size of the cockpit.
I am literally not allowed to sit in the cockpit of a Spitfire, because at 6'2" I am too tall to fit.
My grandfather was rejected by the RAF as a pilot for being too short. (And also for being unwilling to be ordered around and unable to walk in a straight line. They found other uses for him.)
Great video here Greg.
There are several prototype pusher prop fighters but no real production craft, the only one I can think of is the SAAB J21 from Sweden. Could have a pusher fighter been competitive or were drawbacks from the layout insurmountable during that era.
A pusher could have been competitive. In fact the question makes me wonder if you watched the video all the way to the very end, where there is indeed a cockpit from a plane with a pusher prop.
@@GregsAirplanesandAutomobiles
Well, like 99.99% of people I can't ID a plane from a single photo of its cockpit interior, no need to shit on your Patreon supporters here Greg.
Also, the 335 was a push-pull, I was referring to pusher aircraft
@@ivanthemadvandal8435I’m not Greg but I’ll try and answer. There just aren’t big enough advantages to the pusher design IMHO.
1. Most of the fighters of the era were tail draggers, due to the poor conditions of the runways they were using at the time. A pusher has less inherent prop to ground clearance unless you make the landing gear especially long, which has its own set of design challenges in terms of stability, packaging, and durability.
2. With a single engine the pusher design becomes especially challenging as where do you put the tail? Do you use canards? Canards were poorly understood at this time.
3. The loss of climb performance. Propellors mounted forward of the wings produce lift as a byproduct of torque; or for the layman, the prop wash over the wings produces a substantial amount of lift as a function of throttle. More throttle, more lift. I cannot understate how dramatic this effect can be, you can witness it firsthand at air shows where performers will hang a propellor driven airplane at near zero airspeed, well below the stall speed of the wing and remain airborne. This also effects take off performance to a degree.
4. In addition to providing more lift, the prop wash also makes the elevator and rudder on conventional tail aircraft more effective at slower speed ->again this is important when you’re talking about low time pilots as it makes the airplane easier to fly on and off the bad airstrips (or aircraft carriers), they were using.
5. Lastly it’s just a simpler airplane to design. Simple good.
Edit: Pushers start to become much more worth it when in twin engine configuration. A push pull design for example benefits from 1 frontal disc in terms of drag, compared to a conventional twin that has 3. In essence for the same drag (frontal area), as a single engine airplane, you get the benefits of a second engine.
It's easier to feel a part of your aircraft (as any pilot should) when your cockpit is designed with you in mind.
Another excellent video, thanks.
I own a Europa mono wheel a two seat British designed homebuilt kit plane. In keeping with British tradition, the flaps and gear have the same lever, this to simplify and avoid gear up landing for if one fails to drop the flaps the nose blocks the view of the runway on approach hence a clue you forgot something.
I have found when many pilots get used to bad ergonomics and they reject the idea of fixing the issue. The Europa has a control stick, throttle and gear/flaps lever in center console and to the right of those is the brake handle. It's rather awkward having the brake handle on the far right of the throttle and a few pilots have bumped the throttle reaching the brake handle.
I fixed the problem mounting a motorcycle style brake handle on the stick, it's perfect now, but many Europa pilots are accustomed to the brake handle and will not change it.
That looks like a really fun airplane.
@@GregsAirplanesandAutomobiles It really is, but like a Grumman Wildcat it requires respect in the ground handling. Good speed for a low fuel burn, between 2 and 5 gallons per hour 140 to 170 kt depending on alt. (It's turbocharged) it likes grass fields.
This was great as far as it went but the most important human factor in my opinion- since it is of primary importance in air combat- is cockpit visibility. I’ve often wondered why so many WW2 era aircraft had canopies that blinded pilots to the rear. It’s not just a matter of technology because some like the Zero and FW 190 did have this even very early in the war though certainly the late war P 51 and P 47 bubble canopies were supreme
12:30 you are a courageous man Greg!
The Butthurt Form is yet another reason to follow you, Greg. The best content and a sense of humor.
Brilliant as usual. Are you going to do similar type analysis of B-24/17/29's? I know fighter pilots had a lot to contend with, but it seems like the pilot and copilot of a B-17 was a challenge as well. The B-29 was ( I would expect) an even greater challenge not only for the pilot/co pilot, but the flight engineer. Any thoughts? Sorry I know you are busy and may not be able to respond. Thanks
Whether a cockpit heater is installed depends on the guy in the Air Ministry writing the Specification, who probably last flew in combat in a Camel or a SE 5a. The Designer will only put in what he has to. So RobofGabriola (below) is spot on with his reasoning.
Not having a heater is a human factors issue, regardless of who set up the specs.
BAAAAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA GREG!!! That butthurt report is sorely needed nowadays. I laughed really loud when I read through that. Thank you for putting that at the end of your video (the rest of which was fantastic, as well, thank you for that, too.)
4:37 That's *very* effective, when the wind isn't blowing.
Gosh I love this content even though so much of the technical stuff is beyond me.
Still hoping for a demystification video of the Mosquito! And as secondary question if any of the resident experts here can offer an opinion: if the USA had wanted to make variants of the P38 is there any type of mission that the mosquito could do that a p38 couldn’t theoretically be modified to do as well?
Thanks if anyone offers an opinion. Sorry about it being off topic.
I’m just posting while listening to the video……and smiling.
Thanks for existing Greg.
Greg, this is a great series on Human Factors. Do you have plans to continue this subject, perhaps from a maintainability perspective?