Soviet Fighters/open cockpit

[Sgt_Joch]

Reading about Soviet Fighters in WW2, one issue which keeps coming up is that pilots generally liked to fly with the cockpit open, radiator flap fully open and tailwheel down and locked. Depending on the plane, this appears to have generally shaved 30-40 kmh off the top speed.

 

I have read many theories on why Russian pilots flew with an open cockpit. The two which seem to make the most sense are:

 

1. apparently, the latch mechanism was not user friendly and it was difficult or impossible to open the canopy at speeds above 350 kmh. Pilots were worried about being trapped in the airplane and unable to bail out if they were shot down or the engine caught fire; and

 

2. cockpits were poorly ventilated and/or engines were poorly insulated: it could get very hot and stifling and engine fumes would seep into a closed cockpit.

 

As anyone who has researched Soviet WW2 planes know, they were designed strictly for performance and pilot comfort/safety were not taken into account.

 

There does not seem to be much written on this. Wonder if anyone has more info?

 

Second, this issue was not modeled in Il-2. Just wondering if the Devs have plan to look into this and provide an incentive for Soviet pilots to fly with an open cockpit, for example, increased probablility that the pilot grays out if he keeps the cockpit closed for too long?

Edited September 3, 2013 by 2Lt_Joch

[AX2]

Reading about Soviet Fighters in WW2, one issue which keeps coming up is that pilots generally liked to fly with the cockpit open, radiator flap fully open and tailwheel down and locked. Depending on the plane, this appears to have generally shaved 30-40 kmh off the top speed.

 

Second, this issue was not modeled in Il-2. Just wondering if the Devs have plan to look into this and provide an incentive for Soviet pilots to fly with an open cockpit, for example, increased probablility that the pilot grays out if he keeps the cockpit closed for too long?

 

Good post really! +1 

Please forgive me But I must do some clarifications

 

Need Incentive.. 

Opening the cockpit  and you can see your six perfectly !, Like  in BoS ALPHA videos.

 

But in reality, If you get your head  out and to look back " at high  speeds " ..was impossible. ( You will break your neck )

Open the cockpit and look  your six at high speed is big cheat ! 

 

 BUT,  If you fly at less than 250 kmh to 320 Kmh ?? with open cockpit you can look  back , only at  low Gs!

 

I have only few data ( LA5 FN pilot manual ), I understand this

Open Cockpit = 15 to 18 kmh

Tailwheel down = 8 to 10 kmh

 engine radiator open + oil radiator open = 45 to 50 kmh

Generally shaved 68 to 78 kmh of the top speed

Edited September 4, 2013 by Mustang

[AlCapwn]

A big reason for it that I've always heard and read is that russia had fairly poor plexi which would yellow very quickly and be very difficult to see through. I'll need to look through some of my books again to get an actual 'source' for you though.

[HeavyCavalrySgt]

Total speculation, but I wonder if in the winter the inside of the canopy tended to fog from the pilot's breath, then freeze?  Looking at the IL-2 preflight training video the pilot closes the canopy and his very next motion is to open the sliding window in the canopy.  Looking on line at pictures of Russian aircraft in the air, the majority of them seem to have the canopy closed.  (That is a funny video, by the way.  The pilot checks all the normal preflight stuff that you'd expect, but when he climbs up on the wing, he has to hold on and drag himself up the wing because it is slippery with ice.  There is no mention made of that at all!  Ice apparently is a totally normal thing to find covering your airplane and no reason to think of not going flying if you are a Russian combat pilot operating off a frozen lake.)

 

Typically if the tailwheel retracts, it is the same control that retracts the mains.  I bet if you are operating off of frozen lakes, or off of roads or pastures though that tailwheel would attract a lot of slush and mud and water and might not want to come down when the mains do after an hour or more of exposure to sub-zero temps.  Pinning it down would make sense there.

 

Just guessing.

[Original_Uwe]

Over read the same about the need to ventilate the cockpit of exhaust fumes.

[III/JG53Frankyboy]

 

 

 

Need Incentive.. 

Opening the cockpit  and you can see your six perfectly !, Like  in BoS ALPHA videos.

 

But in reality, If you get your head  out and to look back " at high  speeds " ..was impossible. ( You will break your neck )

Open the cockpit and look  your six at high speed is big cheat ! 

 

 

 

 

Loft told me at Gamescom that they will program airpressure that you cant lean out so far in the air as on ground standing.......

And that there will be airspeed loss with open canopy, was already visible in videos

 

As far on bad quality cockpit glass.......i doubt it. As far i understood they will programm at least the Flightperfomances so, as they planes would be in perfect conditions. I assume the same goes for all other things..... we will see i guess :D

[Freycinet]

Many of those issues were cleared up by late 1942, I believe. Also, the russian planes cannot have been as absolutely terrible as you say, because then they wouldn't have shot down any German planes at all!

[LLv44_Mprhead]

A big reason for it that I've always heard and read is that russia had fairly poor plexi which would yellow very quickly and be very difficult to see through. I'll need to look through some of my books again to get an actual 'source' for you though.

I have also read this being the reason for flying with open cockpit, and also the reason why lend-lease planes apparently were popular among soviet pilots (you could see out and you had a radio equipment that you could both send and receive.)

[[BTEAM]_Shifty_]

Pilots coming over from I-153 and I-16 were used to open cockpit and the better view it gave them. And the sense of security that you could bail out any moment. 

Outside of combat it wasn't as detrimental. Better aerial awareness beats 50 kmh of top speed or slightly higher fuel consumption. 

And once in combat, soviet planes didn't capitalize on top speed anyway. 

[VeryOldMan]

Many of those issues were cleared up by late 1942, I believe. Also, the russian planes cannot have been as absolutely terrible as you say, because then they wouldn't have shot down any German planes at all!

 

 

Well considerign the BF109 was as dangerous to the german pilots ad the   Laag-3 ...  

Pilots coming over from I-153 and I-16 were used to open cockpit and the better view it gave them. And the sense of security that you could bail out any moment. 

Outside of combat it wasn't as detrimental. Better aerial awareness beats 50 kmh of top speed or slightly higher fuel consumption. 

And once in combat, soviet planes didn't capitalize on top speed anyway. 

 

 

Depends a lot HOW you fight.   If you do nto intend to stay in the field and you  have  speed advantage,  closign the cokpit and captalize in speed is an advantage. But if with closed cockpit you are  Slower than your enemy anyways,   then opening will not change anything, while givingyou better awareness.... until  a sparrow  hits you in the head

[Sgt_Joch]

All the theories I read were on the internet, so there is always a question as to their validity.

 

Gordon, Khazanov in "Soviet combat aircraft of the second world war" often mention the point, but without giving a reason. Of course, I still have not read the entire book.

 

For example :

 

1. vol.1, p.42: " In combat Soviet pilots flew the La-5 with the canopy open, the cowling side flaps fully open and the tailwheel down, and this reduced its speed by another...(30 to 40km/h)".

 

this is the 1st generation La-5 from august 1942. This appears to have been measured in flight tests, but it is not clear from the text.

 

2. vol.1, p. 50: " The La-5FN with an open canopy ( as Soviet pilots used to fly it ) overtakes hostile fighters, albeit slowly, gets on their tails during banked turns, and in vertical air combat always turns to get above the enemy."

 

This is taken from a report by a captain V. Garanin on his combat experiences at Kursk. The bit between the parantheses was obviously added by the authors themselves.

[VeryOldMan]

Surely is hard to take this as precise data, because.. what hostile fighter he talking about? If he is   fighing an Emil sure,  but I doubt an LA-5 on these conditions could  outperform  a Gustav,  the physics and logic do not support it.  

 

Sometimes  people  tend to  create a fake overconfidence in their equipment, that is almost psicologicaly  need to survive the mental stress in the front.

[Sgt_Joch]

Surely is hard to take this as precise data, because.. what hostile fighter he talking about? If he is   fighing an Emil sure,  but I doubt an LA-5 on these conditions could  outperform  a Gustav,  the physics and logic do not support it.  

 

Sometimes  people  tend to  create a fake overconfidence in their equipment, that is almost psicologicaly  need to survive the mental stress in the front.

 

I was not quoting it for performance, but for the fact that he flew his La-5 with an open canopy in combat in july 1943..

 

p.s. - he was talking about 109Gs and Fw190s.

Edited September 4, 2013 by 2Lt_Joch

[AX2]

Loft told me at Gamescom that they will program airpressure that you cant lean out so far in the air as on ground standing.......

And that there will be airspeed loss with open canopy, was already visible in videos

 

 

Great news, thanks !

[LLv34_Flanker]

S!

 

Gordon - Khazanov book has some interesting points regarding the LagG-3 and others. For example in the LagG-3 pilots had the radiator bolted open to keep sufficient cooling at expense of speed. Also rhe poor quality of plexiglass was mentioned. Biggest issue seemed to be the poor finish and work quality of the planes out from the factory. Meaning not so well aligned wheel doors etc. causing more drag. On La-5 series I have read about the hot cockpit and fumes entering interior. Sealing of firewall was far from good.

 

But for a game it is hard or not feasible to model production flaws etc. for sake of playability. Best is propably go for something between factory and field test numbers totally forgetting prototype values as they were not giving full picture due the tests being done with non-combat setup etc. Devs have one heck of a job with tuning and not envying them at all.

[Finkeren]

Total speculation, but I wonder if in the winter the inside of the canopy tended to fog from the pilot's breath, then freeze? Looking at the IL-2 preflight training video the pilot closes the canopy and his very next motion is to open the sliding window in the canopy.

 

Just guessing.

This seems quite feasible. I have seen a few pictures of VVS aircraft, where the sliding part of the canopy has been removed altogether, and IIRC most of these (if not all?) are taken during winter. I especially remember a picture of LaGGs stationed at Murmansk in vinter 41/42. Just think about that, it's freezing cold in a way, that most of us can't even imagine, and once you climb into that cockpit you know, that for the next hour and a half you'll be almost completely exposed to the elements with winds several hundred knots styring blowing around your head. Edited September 4, 2013 by Finkeren

[senseispcc]

Please read the soviet war pilots diaries and you shall read all this is "bullshit" the same is true about Japanese pilots how did wear glasses!  

 

Soviet tactics dictate mass formation flight how can you follow your leader if he is 50km/h faster than you?!

 

The French Normandy Niemen flew Yak fighters and never once mention this sort of non-sense.

 

The only one that mention it is Pokryshin with the first Mig1's where pilots where afraid of the fighter ending on is back at landing and dying drown in a ditch trap in the closed canopy.

 

[JtD]

Regarding the OP, this is what the La-5 manual had to say about this. Obviously, it was enough of an issue to dedicate a page in the manual to this.

[senseispcc]

There is the same sort of remarqs in any type of manuals and I never did se many Tempest with the canopy open in flight.

[HeavyCavalrySgt]

Regarding the OP, this is what the La-5 manual had to say about this. Obviously, it was enough of an issue to dedicate a page in the manual to this.

 

Well look at the size of that pilot!  There is no way he could close the canopy!

[6./ZG26_Emil]

I blame health and safety

[JtD]

There is the same sort of remarqs in any type of manuals and I never did se many Tempest with the canopy open in flight.

Can you show the releveant part of the Tempest manual, please?

[Freycinet]

In general it is really hard to make a flightsim based on anecdotal evidence...

[HeavyCavalrySgt]

This seems quite feasible. I have seen a few pictures of VVS aircraft, where the sliding part of the canopy has been removed altogether, and IIRC most of these (if not all?) are taken during winter. I especially remember a picture of LaGGs stationed at Murmansk in vinter 41/42. Just think about that, it's freezing cold in a way, that most of us can't even imagine, and once you climb into that cockpit you know, that for the next hour and a half you'll be almost completely exposed to the elements with winds several hundred knots styring blowing around your head.

 

 

I suggested it because flying here in the winter it can be a problem especially before there is enough heat from the engine to warm the inside of the windshield.  Not a good day when you need an ice scrapper inside the plane!  I have taken off in temps down to -7F, nothing at all like some of the nippy weather Russia gets.

[AX2]

Well look at the size of that pilot!  There is no way he could close the canopy!

 

[Sgt_Joch]

I came across this, interview of a mr. Mukhmediarov who flew Yaks in 43-45.

 

— Did you fly with open or closed canopy?

 

With closed. If you open it, you will lose a bit of speed… Some flew with open. For example Dubovik, Deputy Regiment commander. When we flew close air support, we often saw that his canopy was almost always open. It was not completely transparent, so the view was a bit obscured.

 

— Was there an armored glass?

 

Armored glass was in the front. Behind us was an armored metal plate, about shoulder high, and the rest was armored glass, for viewing of what was happening behind. Our first Yaks were produced with full metal armored headrest. Then it was decided that glass was needed. But the view at long distances was still bad – armored glass was sandwich-like, so visibility was distorted.

 

 

http://lend-lease.airforce.ru/english/articles/muhmediyarov/index.htm

 

He seems to imply it was a visibility issue.

 

 

 

[AX2]

Obviously, it was enough of an issue to dedicate a page in the manual to this.

Yes I must agree.

[AX2]

I came across this, interview of a mr. Mukhmediarov who flew Yaks in 43-45.

 

 

http://lend-lease.airforce.ru/english/articles/muhmediyarov/index.htm

 

He seems to imply it was a visibility issue.

 

Also the IL2 has visibility issues through armored glass.

[Finkeren]

Sorry to revive this old thread, but Randall Munroes excellent XKCD led me to this interesting bit of video, which might give us an idea, of what it would be like to stick your head out of the cockpit and into the airflow at different speeds:

 

[SGCstavka]

Only to add some real life information to this. In instructional movies, USA instructors said to their pilots, in aircrafts that canopy open to back like P40 and P47, that pilot needs to takeoff and landing with canopy opened to, if in a situation of crash, not be trapped inside the cockpit when crash land on water, trees or need to go out quickly before aircraft explodes. But not recommend to let it opened all the flight because loose of aerodynamic performance.

Edited October 8, 2013 by KNBstavka

[SvAF/F19_Klunk]

Pilots coming over from I-153 and I-16 were used to open cockpit and the better view it gave them. And the sense of security that you could bail out any moment. 

Outside of combat it wasn't as detrimental. Better aerial awareness beats 50 kmh of top speed or slightly higher fuel consumption. 

And once in combat, soviet planes didn't capitalize on top speed anyway. 

 

 I think this is pretty much the case. 

 

In comparison, I had a conversation with a Swedish Gladiator pilot for research back in 2003 when we were doing the J8A for IL2. He told me that when the Swedish airforce received the Gladiators, most pilots preferred an open cockpit for the reasons mentioned above, plus that they were used to the noise of the wind drag: it was important for them in order to get the right "feel" of the plane, as they were coming from other open cockpit planes - exactly like the old  Chaika and Ishak pilots