Which cockpit has the best visibility?

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

Subject: 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

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

Subject: 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.

Subject: 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: 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

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

Subject: 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.

Subject: 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: 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

"Ed Rasimus" wrote in message
...
On 19 Nov 2003 18:41:40 GMT, (ArtKramr) wrote:

Subject: 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.

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: 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.

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

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