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

[Gooseneck]

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

 

Krupi, it was a tiny glimpse of a gunsight for less than half a second in your vid. You've managed to provoke a resurgence of arguments of old, to a significant degree. Good job. How are the Emperors of Rome getting on by the way? :D

[bongodriver]

Nope - refraction raises the effective viewpoint of the pilot.

 

Oops, yes that's true my bad, it's one of those issues that makes the head hurt after a while, presumably then most aircraft with armoured glass benefited from this effect, so we should consider improving visibility for other types too.

[Altflieger]

Dooyar, he must be sitting on a cushion...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XkqbUahsiHg

[Weta43]

Ok - better experiment:

 

12mm plexiglass, at 50 degrees to the viewer.

The edge of the table in contact with the Plexiglas is displaced visually.

By the time you get to the edge of the table 1.5m away, most of the parallax difference is gone.

The grey bar across the image is part of the window frame at 2.4m from the plexiglass. That's closer (?) than the end of the nose of the Dora - what you're trying to look over. at that distance the parallax difference is almost completely gone, and the amount of fence (the white angled line) 300m away that you can see over the frame is almost identical

As you can see, the refraction makes almost no difference to the viewed position of the object at 300m relative to the nose at 2m.

And the 'bar' is clearly visible...

 

I can't see that there's anything like enough error in the amount of target viewable (sub 1m of extra view at 300m, less further away) to warrant coding a second viewpoint in the cockpit to provide the parallax difference through, and only through, the front windscreen.

Edited September 29, 2013 by Weta43

[Nate--IRL--]

12mm plexiglass, at 50 degrees to the viewer.

The edge of the table in contact with the Plexiglas is displaced visually.

 

That's conclusive enough for me.

 

Nate

[TwoLate]

Ahhhhh just like old times. The banana forums have come to life. Bars and Octane levels. Next will be the performance charts and the fierce debates about my favorite plane. I am waiting now for the infamous tank killing point fifties. Trees I like flying into tress I forgot about that one. Remember the classic about trim on a rotary debate. What was that flyers name? Man where is my popcorn.

[Gooseneck]

Ahhhhh just like old times. The banana forums have come to life.

 

Bwahahaaaa!! Exactly mate. I'm sure we all needed somewhere to go......Especially Krupi and his bloody silly bar argument. I just hope that the people who run this forum realise what just happened. :D

[AndyJWest]

Does anyone know what sort of wood they made Spitfires out of?

[Gooseneck]

Does anyone know what sort of wood they made Spitfires out of?

Eh? All the ones I knew about were made of polystyrene. Don't understand your question.....

[cichlidfan]

Does anyone know what sort of wood they made Spitfires out of?

 

If someone does, I hope they have a Spit, and a certified wood expert, in their backyard as supporting evidence. :lol:

[leafer]

So, basically this is mountain out of molehill then? I'm lost.

 

Edit: Wow. I got it! lol Weta, you rock. So is modeling refraction possible?

Edited September 29, 2013 by leafer

[Krupi]

Bwahahaaaa!! Exactly mate. I'm sure we all needed somewhere to go......Especially Krupi and his bloody silly bar argument. I just hope that the people who run this forum realise what just happened. :D

 

Ah god, how did this happen when did "Krupi" and "190 Bar" become synonymous...

 

:helpsmilie:

 

:Flush:

[Hans-Joachim Marseille]

No need to cry over spilt milk ...

 

[Gooseneck]

Ah god, how did this happen when did "Krupi" and "190 Bar" become synonymous...

 

:helpsmilie:

 

:Flush:

 

I'd say that 'Krupi' is more synonymous with 'Any Lap Dancing Club in Bristol', rather than the '190 Bar', but maybe I labour under a misapprehension. ;)

[MA_Goblin]

OK, this is a picture from the front and slightly above, from this point it's quite obvious that the pilot has a clear view through the revi and that the "cushion" is more of an obstruction than the bar as far as I can see. And just for my own interest I've ordered the blueprints and manuals for the D9 from the German archives as well. Beeing an engineer with military background I have a need to know this kind of stuff :) Sorr I'm a nerd LOL.

 

Edited September 29, 2013 by hakjar

[NineLine]

OK, this is a picture from the front and slightly above, from this point it's quite obvious that the pilot has a clear view through the revi and that the "cushion" is more of an obstruction than the bar as far as I can see.

 

 

 

Regardless of anyones beef, this is a very cool picture :)

[msalama]

Does anyone know what sort of wood they made Spitfires out of?

 

Titanium-strength deltawood of course, as any former IL-2 whine-oh-niner could tell us :megalol:

 

Harharhar... sorry...

[MA_Goblin]

Haha, I feel at home. Have missed theese weird discussions :D

[bongodriver]

OK, this is a picture from the front and slightly above

 

Which doesn't really prove anything, we already know the view is unobstructed from there, we need a view looking along and parallel to the upper forward fuselage.

[Kodoss]

[bongodriver]

I don't see any 'magic window' effect in Kodoss's picture......I do see a lot of nose though, so the picture is taken from higher than normal pilots viewpoint..........which is supposedly what happens with the refraction.

Edited September 29, 2013 by bongodriver

[MA_Goblin]

Yes but since the "bar" is hardly visible in the pic from above it shouldn't be visible from the seated position!

It's more of what I said that the padding is higher than the window frame and thus shouldn't be visible unless

you raise the seat position.

 

Never mind, we'll see what it'll look like when in beta/alpha :D

 

EDIT:I spell horrible today :(

Edited September 29, 2013 by hakjar

[bongodriver]

Yes but since the "bar" is hardly visible in the pic from above it shouldn't be visible from the seated position!

 

The bar is visible, it's just not prominent above the entire forward view, the nose of the aircraft in this case is replacing the bar....and this pic is a short nosed 190.

 

the padding in this picture is not how it should be for operational use, because there is no gunsight modern operators simply close the gap that should be there.

Edited September 29, 2013 by bongodriver

[MA_Goblin]

The FW190 series has a slant from the cockpit to the nose. The pit sits higher in the fuselage providing a very clear view over the cowling in flight and combat. Hopefully whne I receive my data from the German archives it should be clear

 

[bongodriver]

The FW190 series has a slant from the cockpit to the nose. The pit sits higher in the fuselage providing a very clear view over the cowling in flight and combat. Hopefully whne I receive my data from the German archives it should be clear

 

 

Not much of a slant though, don't forget the germans put guns up there and they couldn't liberally slant the nose, you can see clearly the guns are almost parallel with the horizontal, in fact most of the reason there is an apparent slant is because of the step down from the gun bulges.