Re: Which cockpit has the best visibility?

[John Mullen]

Hobo wrote:
> From looking at the *pictures*, I always thought the F-16 gave the pilot
> the best visibility, but the F-22 looks even better. Which fighter
> aircraft is generally considered to give the pilot the best all around
> view of the environment?
f15

John

[ArtKramr]

>Subject: Re: Which cockpit has the best visibility?
>From: John Mullen
>Date: 11/19/03 9:22 AM Pacific Standard Time
>Message-id: >
>
>Hobo wrote:
>> From looking at the *pictures*, I always thought the F-16 gave the pilot
>> the best visibility, but the F-22 looks even better. Which fighter
>> aircraft is generally considered to give the pilot the best all around
>> view of the environment?
>f15
>
>John
>

If you have to watch a war, it is hard to beat the nose of a B-26
Marauder..That;s on of the great things about being a Bombardier. Of course
pilots had a lot better armor than we did. But you can't have everything.
(grin)



Arthur Kramer
344th BG 494th BS
England, France, Belgium, Holland, Germany
Visit my WW II B-26 website at:
http://www.coastcomp.com/artkramer

[Ed Rasimus]

On 19 Nov 2003 18:41:40 GMT, (ArtKramr) wrote:

>>Subject: Re: Which cockpit has the best visibility?
>
>If you have to watch a war, it is hard to beat the nose of a B-26
>Marauder..That;s on of the great things about being a Bombardier. Of course
>pilots had a lot better armor than we did. But you can't have everything.
>(grin)

>Arthur Kramer

Gotta say that as a bombardier, navigator, gunner, defensive systems
operator, radio operator, and part-time driver of an F-105 we had a
good view as well, but general visibility sucked. I recall returning
to the US to be checked out as a T-38 IP and noting that R/C/P landing
seemed to have much better vis than normal 'Chief approaches.

Oh, and no armor anywhere.

I'd have to go with a Viper for best current crop view. Better than an
Eagle, because you don't have to go around twin tails or big intakes.
I suspect that -22 is going to be equally good. I recall that -23 was
designed to be pretty good as well, although I left the program before
I saw if they could cast a bubble that big and that narrow without
distortion.

[ArtKramr]

>Subject: Re: Which cockpit has the best visibility?
>From: Ed Rasimus
>Date: 11/19/03 1:36 PM Pacific Standard Time
>Message-id: >
>
>On 19 Nov 2003 18:41:40 GMT, (ArtKramr) wrote:
>
>>>Subject: Re: Which cockpit has the best visibility?
>>
>>If you have to watch a war, it is hard to beat the nose of a B-26
>>Marauder..That;s on of the great things about being a Bombardier. Of course
>>pilots had a lot better armor than we did. But you can't have everything.
>>(grin)
>
>>Arthur Kramer
>
>Gotta say that as a bombardier, navigator, gunner, defensive systems
>operator, radio operator, and part-time driver of an F-105 we had a
>good view as well, but general visibility sucked. I recall returning
>to the US to be checked out as a T-38 IP and noting that R/C/P landing
>seemed to have much better vis than normal 'Chief approaches.
>
>Oh, and no armor anywhere.
>

NO ARMOR ANYWHERE?? In the B-26 the cockpit had 1/2" of a steel behind the
pilots and lots on the sides as well. Fuel tanks were armored as were tail and
top turret gunner positiones. Only the nose (Plexiglas) and waist windows had
no armor. How come yours was stripped?


Arthur Kramer
344th BG 494th BS
England, France, Belgium, Holland, Germany
Visit my WW II B-26 website at:
http://www.coastcomp.com/artkramer

[Ed Rasimus]

On 19 Nov 2003 21:55:39 GMT, (ArtKramr) wrote:

>>Subject: Re: Which cockpit has the best visibility?
>>From: Ed Rasimus

>>Oh, and no armor anywhere.
>>
>
> NO ARMOR ANYWHERE?? In the B-26 the cockpit had 1/2" of a steel behind the
>pilots and lots on the sides as well. Fuel tanks were armored as were tail and
>top turret gunner positiones. Only the nose (Plexiglas) and waist windows had
>no armor. How come yours was stripped?
>
>Arthur Kramer

Maybe somebody was out to get me?

Weren't no armor in 105s. Probably had something to do with the desire
to make the airplane go Mach 2. I never had the pleasure of going that
fast, but found the beast more than thrilling at low level and high
speed.

Putting armor behind the seat would have been extraneous. There was
nearly six feet of airplane beneath the seat already and a big hulking
engine (and some fuel tanks) behind.

Of course, there was always the psychological benefit of crouching
down below the canopy rail. It made me feel secure.

[ArtKramr]

>Subject: Re: Which cockpit has the best visibility?
>From: Ed Rasimus
>Date: 11/19/03 3:05 PM Pacific Standard Time
>Message-id: >
>
>On 19 Nov 2003 21:55:39 GMT, (ArtKramr) wrote:
>
>>>Subject: Re: Which cockpit has the best visibility?
>>>From: Ed Rasimus
>
>>>Oh, and no armor anywhere.
>>>
>>
>> NO ARMOR ANYWHERE?? In the B-26 the cockpit had 1/2" of a steel behind the
>>pilots and lots on the sides as well. Fuel tanks were armored as were tail
>and
>>top turret gunner positiones. Only the nose (Plexiglas) and waist windows
>had
>>no armor. How come yours was stripped?
>>
>>Arthur Kramer
>
>Maybe somebody was out to get me?
>
>Weren't no armor in 105s. Probably had something to do with the desire
>to make the airplane go Mach 2. I never had the pleasure of going that
>fast, but found the beast more than thrilling at low level and high
>speed.
>
>Putting armor behind the seat would have been extraneous. There was
>nearly six feet of airplane beneath the seat already and a big hulking
>engine (and some fuel tanks) behind.
>
>Of course, there was always the psychological benefit of crouching
>down below the canopy rail. It made me feel secure.
>
>
>

Ah that feeling of security is everything. I always made believe that Plexiglas
was bullet proof and flak proof. Made me feel secure. (grin)



Arthur Kramer
344th BG 494th BS
England, France, Belgium, Holland, Germany
Visit my WW II B-26 website at:
http://www.coastcomp.com/artkramer

[Sid Wood]

"Ed Rasimus" > wrote in message
...
> On 19 Nov 2003 18:41:40 GMT, (ArtKramr) wrote:
>
> >>Subject: Re: Which cockpit has the best visibility?
> >
> >stuff snipped>>
> I'd have to go with a Viper for best current crop view. Better than an
> Eagle, because you don't have to go around twin tails or big intakes.
> I suspect that -22 is going to be equally good. I recall that -23 was
> designed to be pretty good as well, although I left the program before
> I saw if they could cast a bubble that big and that narrow without
> distortion.
>

Ed, is that true? Are canopies "cast"?
For some reason I thought they were formed from sheet material.

[Ed Rasimus]

On Thu, 20 Nov 2003 00:39:02 GMT, "Sid Wood" >
wrote:

>
>"Ed Rasimus" > wrote in message
...
>> On 19 Nov 2003 18:41:40 GMT, (ArtKramr) wrote:
>>
>> >>Subject: Re: Which cockpit has the best visibility?
>> > I recall that -23 was
>> designed to be pretty good as well, although I left the program before
>> I saw if they could cast a bubble that big and that narrow without
>> distortion.
>>
>
>Ed, is that true? Are canopies "cast"?
>For some reason I thought they were formed from sheet material.
>

Sorry, precision with language is usually a strong point, but I
dribbled before shooting on that one. They aren't "cast", as in poured
liquid, but they also are a bit more difficult to make than simply
pressing softened sheet in a mold.

My point was that the profile of the -23 was for a relatively narrow
faced canopy that would have required a lot of careful fabrication to
keep any semblance of optical correctness.

I will have to say that having been from the generation of flying
barndoors, driven at Mach 2 by hugely inefficient powerplants, that
the canopies of modern "teen" fighters are incredible engineering
achievements. I always get the sensation that I'm sitting above the
airplane, riding on a broomstick and unrestrained, about to fall out
into the nothingness of space. Of course I've always had a healthy
dose of acrophobia.

[Mary Shafer]

On Thu, 20 Nov 2003 01:05:01 GMT, Ed Rasimus >
wrote:

> I will have to say that having been from the generation of flying
> barndoors, driven at Mach 2 by hugely inefficient powerplants, that
> the canopies of modern "teen" fighters are incredible engineering
> achievements. I always get the sensation that I'm sitting above the
> airplane, riding on a broomstick and unrestrained, about to fall out
> into the nothingness of space.

I had that same feeling flying the F-16, like I was in a plexiglas
bubble zooming through the sky. (Of course, I only have the front
seat of the NT-33 to compare it to, since I rode in the backseat in
the F-104 and F-4.) When I told our test pilots about this, they all
agreed and one of them told me that there had been some accidents
involving pilots with the same illusion. Apparently, they forgot they
were dragging an airplane around behind them and hit something with
it.

> Of course I've always had a healthy
> dose of acrophobia.

I have a bit of acrophobia, but I've never noticed it in aircraft.
Apparently, this is common. I guess it's silly to require senseless
phobias to be consistent, though.

Mary

--
Mary Shafer Retired aerospace research engineer

[WaltBJ]

F86 Sabre was a visibility standard for a long time until the F16 came
along. I got to sit in one (that's all they'd let me do!) and it beat
the Sabre. You coud see even further below the horizon looking back at
6:00. The 22's rudders are going to block some viz off at 5 and 7.
Worst viz was the back seat in a 105F. My one ride in that jet,
McClellan to Edwards.
Walt Bj

[J]

"WaltBJ" > wrote in message
om...
> F86 Sabre was a visibility standard for a long time until the F16 came
> along. I got to sit in one (that's all they'd let me do!) and it beat
> the Sabre. You coud see even further below the horizon looking back at
> 6:00. The 22's rudders are going to block some viz off at 5 and 7.
> Worst viz was the back seat in a 105F. My one ride in that jet,
> McClellan to Edwards.
> Walt Bj

No I have to say that the worse was the back seat of the RA-5C. But that had
some good points too. When the GIB got really excited you knew you it was
time to get out of Dodge.

Red Rider

[Scott Ferrin]

On Thu, 20 Nov 2003 23:56:38 GMT, "J" > wrote:

>
>"WaltBJ" > wrote in message
om...
>> F86 Sabre was a visibility standard for a long time until the F16 came
>> along. I got to sit in one (that's all they'd let me do!) and it beat
>> the Sabre. You coud see even further below the horizon looking back at
>> 6:00. The 22's rudders are going to block some viz off at 5 and 7.
>> Worst viz was the back seat in a 105F. My one ride in that jet,
>> McClellan to Edwards.
>> Walt Bj
>
>No I have to say that the worse was the back seat of the RA-5C. But that had
>some good points too. When the GIB got really excited you knew you it was
>time to get out of Dodge.
>
>Red Rider
>


Or how about one of the back seaters on the B-58?

[WaltBJ]

Odd thing, acrophobia. I have worked on oil rigs (when I was 18 and
immortal) but have experienced airborne acrophobia twice - once in the
nose of a B25 looking for a crashed T33 - suddenly realized I was at
the wrong end of a long narrow tunnel with no parachute and a very
thin sheet of aluminum under my 225 pounds. But I stayed there anyway
because the view was superb. (We did find it. The crew had punched out
safely at about 43000 when an 11FIS F102 shot its rudder off with a
Falcon (radar!) missile. Big oops; an aircraft swap and the pilot
didn't know the bird was loaded, so he ran the systems check he was
briefed to do. System worked just fine.) The second time was in a 747.
There were only 50 or so people aboard so I was wandering around
checking it out. I was standing in door 4L, all the way back, looking
at the Rockies about 6 miles below, when I discovered I could look
straight down out the door's window due to the curvature of the
fuselage back there. About then I realized I was standing with my nose
against the door window - sans parachute. Always having had a healthy
distrust of machinery - probably from 600 hours flying the F86D, a
flying demonstration of Murphy's Law - I hastened back to my seat and
belted myself in. No 'Mary Poppins' for me!

Walt BJ