[REPORTED] Fw 190 Cockpit Bar! (answer Post #173)

Hilarious!......if you try a bit of internet research on this then every single interesting picture of relevance comes from the ubi discussion, all the same arguments and theories.

 

interesting picture here though

At what angle was the camera pointed, had he moved the seat up sufficently?

Do you really think they would have accepted a bad forward view like that, how were they supposed to lead the aircraft???

Its ludicrous that this is being discussed...

This is a funny thread:) Reminds me of days gone by, I wonder when the first .50 cal thread will be:pilotfly:

all aircraft had faults and were accepted.......perhaps the need for the aircraft in service outweighed the need to make it perfect, it's being discussed because it simply isn't as clear cut as you believe it is and I mean that with the greatest of respect I hope you know Krupi.

Anyone want to talk about 100octane fuel in the Battle of Britain?

all aircraft had faults and were accepted.......perhaps the need for the aircraft in service outweighed the need to make it perfect, it's being discussed because it simply isn't as clear cut as you believe it is and I mean that with the greatest of respect I hope you know Krupi.

I know which is why i said if someone can prove I am wrong I am willing to accept that :thumbup:

Yeah but a pitch down like that isn't going to help a deflection shot.

Actually, it might. Check out the FOV for the Corsair or Hellcat from the Sim That Cannot Be Named (<cough!>IL-2 '46<cough, cough!>) and see how the slight nose down attitude in high speed flight and the sloping nose from the windshield sill improve your firing solution. It will be partially dependent upon where they place your aiming point/crosshairs, but deflection isn't always strictly a matter of straight up and down...

cheers

horseback

I know which is why i said if someone can prove I am wrong I am willing to accept that :thumbup:

very few people are not willing to accept being proved wrong.....it seems all of them frequent flight sim and WWII forums.

Those 50's cals could destroy a Tiger, but only if bounced off grass into the soft underbelly IIRC. As if the Germans would permit a bar to obscure the gunsight lol!

Those 50's cals could destroy a Tiger, but only if bounced off grass into the soft underbelly IIRC. As if the Germans would permit a bar to obscure the gunsight lol!

It's not really a bar, its the lower wind screen framing :thumbup:

It's not really a bar, its the lower wind screen framing :thumbup:

Yah. But the key phrase is 'the Germans wouldn't permit it.'

They probably wouldn't permit the low seat height or the enormous gun bulges either, but this is just a game, so anything is possible.

Yah. But the key phrase is 'the Germans wouldn't permit it.'

 

They probably wouldn't permit the low seat height or the enormous gun bulges either, but this is just a game, so anything is possible.

Well lots of pilots/people were killed, planes lost, because the German's permitted the 109 undercarriage...this was Hitler's war, and logic had no place there :D

Crashland a lot in the 109?

Those 50's cals could destroy a Tiger, but only if bounced off grass into the soft underbelly IIRC. As if the Germans would permit a bar to obscure the gunsight lol!

He he, pun noticed. Don't try to sneak in a .50 effectiveness discussion into the Fw 190 bar thread ;) The "Fw 190 bar" and ".50 cal effectiveness" topics are explosive like nitro which is well known since the old zoo-days and should never be intermixed! :)

He he, pun noticed. Don't try to sneak in a .50 effectiveness discussion into the Fw 190 bar thread ;) The "Fw 190 bar" and ".50 cal effectiveness" topics are explosive like nitro which is well known since the old zoo-days and should never be intermixed! :)

You forgot the RAF's use of 100oct fuel in the Battle of Britain. Shame on you.

:D

I'm hoping Gaston arrives and we can elevate the debate. FW190 as a turn fighter.... second thoughts...perhaps not.

when all else fails, perform an analogous experiment.

If the 'bar' is supposed to represent the bottom edge of the sloping glass, can you see the bottom edge of a sloping piece of glass ?

The image in this post shows the edge of the glass being square to it's face (edges at right angles) http://forums.eagle.ru/showpost.php?p=1888352&postcount=28

If you look below, I took a piece of glass with square edges, and blacked the edge to accentuate it's visibility.

At right angles, the edge is invisible, looking at the glass sloping away from that edge, the edge blacking can be seen.

Looking at the glass sloping back over the observer, the black edge is thinner because of refraction, but still plainly visible. Refraction will not make the 'bar' actually disappear...

If the top edge of the 'bar' is flush with the correct point on the cowling, you're not

(For anyone interested - the slope is at about 45 degrees, & I wasn't all that careful about keeping viewing distances exactly the same so part of the 'thin-ness' of the bar from inside is that it's slightly further away...)

We really need crumpp to come and discuss the stability and control characteristics as well.

We have been down this road before. I think it reliant on the "bar is correct" people to prove there was one as much as it is the role of people to show there wasn't one. What is the most plausible. To me no bar wins that argument.

We really need crumpp

No we don't. :D

Well 'the bar' is the bottom edge of the windscreen in its frame, as far as I can see it was clearly visible from the pilots viewpoint as the whole bottom edge of the windscreen sits above the instrument shroud Illustrated clearly in the diagram and several photographs, how much it actually affected the sight picture is not clear.

the pilots viewpoint is also clearly quite low in the cockpit again the diagrams provided illustrate this with the pilots head more or less already touching the top of the canopy, advocates of the 'refraction made the bar disappear' have to accept that by that same effect the effective viewpoint of the pilot is also lowered further by effectively raising the entire picture through the glass up (including the very slightly sloped loooooong nose)

Crump does have a 190 to play with so he could be of use in this, ahem, discussion. DGC, I'm with you. Anyone have a reference to any luftwaffe pilot complaining about the revi bring blocked by a bar? If there was a problem wouldn't they just have mounted the gunsight half inch higher? Max Gunz should be in on this as well.

....the effective viewpoint of the pilot is also lowered further by effectively raising the entire picture through the glass up (including the very slightly sloped loooooong nose)

Nope - refraction raises the effective viewpoint of the pilot.

..............have to accept that by that same effect the effective viewpoint of the pilot is also lowered further by effectively raising the entire picture through the glass up (including the very slightly sloped loooooong nose)

No, light passing from outside to inside is refracted downward.

Nate

Crump does have a 190 to play with.

Aha. Ahaaha. I think. Are you being serious? I think not.

But let's not waste our time discussing such a sad person. The low seat height in the 'Dora' coupled with the grossly swollen gun bulges, coupled with the extremely long nose, tells me that the view from the 'Dora' was not to be described as 'panoramic'. Can we agree on this point?

Aha. Ahaaha. I think. Are you being serious? I think not.

 

But let's not waste our time discussing such a sad person. The low seat height in the 'Dora' coupled with the grossly swollen gun bulges, coupled with the extremely long nose, tells me that the view from the 'Dora' was not to be described as 'panoramic'. Can we agree on this point?

Yeah we can agree, DCG remove the bar thanks...

Yeah we can agree, DCG remove the bar thanks...

Nope, frame stays, refraction must be implemented IMO.

Nate