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

Maybe the armored windshield can be set up with a shader of refraction similar with the NVG goggles "zooming" shader so the bar would be less visible?

Can't believe this again... I've a dejavu... XDD

Actually, the pit frame do not occludes gunsight, it is a perspective distortion caused a game engine.

From the point of view of the correct 3D model, everything accurately. The sight sitting at that height as the original. If developers decided that the issue of obstruction of gunsight really exists, the gunsight can be easyly raised up to 5mm. But it is a matter of DCS.

As an old Il-2 user my point with the famous bar always was it's there but real line of sight when inflight position does not make it in front of your view and having it there was a fake and mistaken understand of the drawings, may be adding the perspective distortion of game engine named. It can be seen on every photograph, blueprint and so all of you posted, for early, Doras or Tas, doesn't matter. The mistake is relying on blueprints without sitting on real cockpit, without understand aircraft nose go downwards while your line of sight is horizontal so the bar even being there doesn't affects your line of sight. I haven't sat on a Fw190 (I wish :lol:) but have seen on another aircraft, I have sat on an I-16 and cockpit view had nothing to do with what you saw in old Il-2 although may be Il-2 cockpit follows real drawings, and had nothing to do because a bad understanding on the real line of sight you have sitting there, looking forward but also backwards. Just the perfectly accurate point of view inside 3D model in a computer doesn't match the real view you have sitting there. Also 3D view doesn't takes in account aircraft nose points downwards when level flying.

S!

Ok, IvanK, my friend :)

look at photo, we see that cover line heads derectly to frame corner, and the gun sight sitting not parallel to cover line.

Look to drawings, we see absolute identical thing!

With all respect to the good old Bentley but his drawing is incorrect. It is now absolutely sure. At least with relation to Dora.

Greetings ЛИневич

I agree ref drawings particularly Post WWII ones are always subject to debate.

Bentlys drawings are a case in point.

In the end the ultimate arbiter is photographic evidence preferably of actual rather than restored airframes. Going through the FW190 D9 stuff I have I found this pair ... that agrees pretty much exactly with your explanation as to where the coaming intersects the Armour glass frame. So the Yellow line here represents the Red line in your plans.

Then the D9 in the Smithsonian:

Well, as in previous years, this argument gets dafter and more technical, and as a result yet more daft as time goes on.

A pilot would only fire at the point at which he has the correct angular deflection in the reticle of the sight, which bears no relation whatsoever to the physical relationship between the square of glass and the so called 'bar'.

In a direct six o'clock attack, the bar has no relevance. The guns would be fired when the engine of the B-17 was in the centre of the reticle.

In a turn fight, angular deflection comes into play, and guns would be fired, dependant on the exact circumstances, usually when the target was completely obscured by the nose of the aircraft. These sort of situations would be avoided by the pilot.

As some people have been trying to point out all along in this thread, the length of the Dora's nose is far more of a factor in deflection shooting than this tiny strip of obstruction at the lower edge of the glass square which represents the physical form of the gunsight.

But you blokes carry on. I suppose it gives you all something to talk about.

I beg to differ, in all drawings the nose sits lower than the cockpit and slants away. Also all accounts from IRL pilots in the interviews and in books states clearly that only during taxi the visibility was hampered by the nose. In flight you didn't see it according to them. In fact the overall visibility and SA in the FW190 was only equalled by the P51 and the Me262.

Just for the pure technical interest of some people i have here some pictures

of how it is put together. Notice also that there appears to be heating in the

armoured glass according to the parts list.

Images taken from copies of instructions.

Hello, I'm the creator FW-190 pit. Actually, all the evidence the lack of visibility bottom of bulletproof glass, posted here, really do not belong to FW-190D. I built the front of the pit frame guided by the factory drawings, in which everything is exactly as you see on the 3D model. If you look at pictures of a real FW-190D, you will see that the "bar" is there. I actually believed that other versions FW have a different design of bulletproof glass and front part canopy as seen in the pictures.

 

Actually, the pit frame do not occludes gunsight, it is a perspective distortion caused a game engine.

From the point of view of the correct 3D model, everything accurately. The sight sitting at that height as the original. If developers decided that the issue of obstruction of gunsight really exists, the gunsight can be easyly raised up to 5mm. But it is a matter of DCS.

 

PS photo FW with EZ, for general reference only, due to different canopy design.

 

 

 

Just for general reference, this is factory drawing of Ta152 with gyrosight and "bar" :)

Thats awesome, thanks for the response and the images its good to see that the bar is not obstructing the gunsight :clap: :worthy:

Finally this topic can be put to rest no obstruction WHOOO!! :)

And thus the story ends.

Now......about that long nose.........:clown_2:

HeHeHe :)

Something about this drawing .. to me it is wrong.

The line of sight is not from the actual pilot position.. If I am not mistaken and taking experience of WW2 aircraft flown.. the actual pilot should seat higher closer to the canopy to obtain a maximum comfortable visibility and forward.. in RL you can rest on the back of the seat while taking a nap .... ;)... or cruising around looking at the above sky. The pilot in my opinion should be higher, seating with parachute glues to his behind and more forward on instrumentation position or alert .. I never really tried to check it out on German aircraft .

I presume that in many radial engine aicraft the front visibility mostly at take off would of been horrible and with a aiming device just on the middle of your front shield.. Almost all the pilots positions in DCS, IL2, RoF are wrong... and can be corrected.

In modern days Yak9U for example we used to take them off or not even mount them.. the pipper was smaller than in the German aircraft and it was very annoying. they do look good dho.. but landing in modern airport and taxi, traffic etc.. it is a "pain". you open the canopy and start your zigzags with a long stretch neck ;)

Here a little crude view .

But I may talk out of my a** right now since I do not know the plane..

From the FW 190 D-9 spare parts list:

The technical drawing from the FW 190 A-8 Bremen production:

Good invested money...:thumbup:

Kodoss are those drawings from a model kit ?

The gun sight should be quite easy to lean over and pretty much up your face so imo a bar shouldn't interfere with the gun sight at all only if you really move up your seat .

Kodoss are those drawings from a model kit ?

 

The gun sight should be quite easy to lean over and pretty much up your face so imo a bar shouldn't interfere with the gun sight at all only if you really move up your seat .

First pic is from the "original" FW 190 D-9 spare parts list (October 1944)

Second pic is a production drawing from the Bremen factory for the A-8.

Look at the drawing number and you will see, that the drawing of the frame has the same number >> same part by FW 190 A-8 and D-9.

But that doesn't take into account the optical distortion of what you realy would see.:music_whistling:

Kodoss are those drawings from a model kit ?

 

The gun sight should be quite easy to lean over and pretty much up your face so imo a bar shouldn't interfere with the gun sight at all only if you really move up your seat .

Hold on.....if you move the seat 'up' then you would be looking at a downward angle through the sight and therefore see more of the bar.

Hold on.....if you move the seat 'up' then you would be looking at a downward angle through the sight and therefore see more of the bar.

You forget that sights are collimated to infinity. You'd possibly run the gun cross off the combiner though.

collimation is not what I'm talking about, if the pilots eyepoint is raised then the angle to look through the sight is downward effectively bringing everything beyond the sight up in perspective.

collimation is not what I'm talking about, if the pilots eyepoint is raised then the angle to look through the sight is downward effectively bringing everything beyond the sight up in perspective.

But this is all about collimation. If you move up and are still looking through the exact same spot on the combiner (so that you would look more towards the airframe) then the sight is not collimated correctly.

are you saying that no matter what sits beyond the gunsight, if it is collimated then all obstructions become invisible......like a magic portal?

are you saying that no matter what sits beyond the gunsight, if it is collimated then all obstructions become invisible......like a magic portal?

No, i'm saying that if you can look through the combiner unobstructed at the lower most point where the gun cross is still visible, then this is even more true for when you move up (the boundary being of course when the gun cross reaches the uppermost part of the combiner).

Ok so we are not talking about the same thing, my point still stands, if the eye point moves up then due to perspective the bar also moves up if the observer is looking through the sight aperture which remains fixed, the gun cross is not relevant to the point I am making.

My point is that you can't raise your height much off the design point because you'd lose all functionality of the gunsight, the combiner glass on those old designs really isn't all that big.