Same Bf-109 F-4 canopy views like in Tobruk:

[Roland_HUNter]

IL-2 BOS:

 

IL-2 Tobruk:

[gimpy117]

I'm gonna be constructive and point out that I don't think that head position is something that can actually be achieved IRL. I could try it in VR but I don't think there's a snowballs chance in hell Im that flexible and id have to let go on the controls.   

[Soilworker]

Totally unrealistic, the top of your head would be busting through the glass. 

 

Besides when you're strapped into the cramped cockpit of a 109 there's no way in hell you could turn like that, it's already pretty unrealistic in GB. 

[von_Tom]

 

It'd be quite cool to have actual pilot limitations hard-coded in to restrict views like that or to bleed in some fuzziness to account for the difficulties inherent in using peripheral vision to look backwards.  As a brief test I've just looked backwards to my right and it struck me how much the vision in my left eye (and viewing overall) was compromised by my rather elegant nose.

 

It'd be good to put the VR v owl neck arguments to bed.

 

von Tom

[F19_Haddock]

And the straps are crazy tight. People should try a flight on a real glider to see how hard it's to look behind you. Pretty much impossible ?

[Roland_HUNter]

23 minutes ago, F19_Haddock said:

And the straps are crazy tight. People should try a flight on a real glider to see how hard it's to look behind you. Pretty much impossible ?

Then why the allies implemented the bubble canopies?

[-250H-Ursus_]

2 minutes ago, Roland_HUNter said:

Then why the allies implemented the bubble canopies?

For rear vision but even with that, try to look your back by just moving your neck.

For something they still had mirrors

[messsucher]

4 minutes ago, Roland_HUNter said:

Then why the allies implemented the bubble canopies?

 

Maybe because of aerodynamic reasons? Why Germans did not have such? Why they used armored headrests? You can try in a car how well you can check your six.

[-250H-Ursus_]

7 minutes ago, messsucher said:

 

Maybe because of aerodynamic reasons? Why Germans did not have such? Why they used armored headrests? You can try in a car how well you can check your six.

Ehmmm, the bubble canopy in fact is not so aerodynamic and causes some turbulence problems.

 

For something they added that fin in the vertical stabs of P-51s

 

P-51D-5 didn't had that fin.

 

And the latest had them

Edited March 4, 2022 by -332FG-Ursus_

[GOA_Karaya_VR]

This is exactly the way how we move in VR to see our 6 ( and even worst if our VR headset has limited fov as for me with 90 degree ).

 

 

[SharpeXB]

Pilots can turn to see their 6:00. It’s a sorta VR myth that’s sprung up. If a 109 pilot can’t see back there, why are there armored glass headrests? Why did all fighter aircraft eventually adopt blister canopies? Another part of this myth is that fighter pilots are strapped in like astronauts or race car drivers. They aren’t. Yeah that’s dangerous but so is eating bullets. In real life this requires more physical effort but that can’t be simulated in a PC game. 
 

3 hours ago, F19_Haddock said:

And the straps are crazy tight. People should try a flight on a real glider to see how hard it's to look behind you. Pretty much impossible ?

Again they actually aren’t. You can see in that F-18 video that the shoulder straps are so loose they fall off during the maneuvers. Reading some accounts, I think it was Winged Victory about WWI they pretty much strike a balance between safety and the fact that not being able to see around easily is basically suicide in air combat. Being strapped in tightly is only beneficial when landing of crash landing (unless you’re flying a pusher plane in which case you want to be thrown clear of the engine which would crush you) The same was certainly true in WWII

[F19_Haddock]

Good stuff! Those photos are awesome. Loose straps. I've learned something today ?

[SharpeXB]

15 minutes ago, F19_Haddock said:

Good stuff! Those photos are awesome. Loose straps. I've learned something today ?

What’s funny too is reading about it, there was this belief that persisted into maybe the 50s that it was better to be thrown clear of a crash. In the case of the pusher plane, it was true! The author looks back at the wrecked plane and sees his shoe squashed under the engine, thinking hey good idea I didn’t belt in ? then later gives an account of almost being thrown clear out of his Camel by an air pocket, pulling himself back in by the top wing.

[II/JG17_HerrMurf]

1 hour ago, SharpeXB said:

What’s funny too is reading about it, there was this belief that persisted into maybe the 50s that it was better to be thrown clear of a crash. In the case of the pusher plane, it was true! The author looks back at the wrecked plane and sees his shoe squashed under the engine, thinking hey good idea I didn’t belt in ? then later gives an account of almost being thrown clear out of his Camel by an air pocket, pulling himself back in by the top wing.

 

Through the 1950's your survivability without seatbelts and most steering columns being, essentially, pikes was probably about 50/50 for stay with the collision or get thrown clear. Either way you were probably f'd at anything above 50 mph or so.

 

Also, modern aircraft have retractable harnesses. My Blackhawk did, my H130 does. The Blackhawk harness can be locked or on the doglegs (intertia lock)  by individual choice. Doing NOE without them locked was pretty fun.

Edited March 4, 2022 by II/JG17_HerrMurf

[gimpy117]

11 hours ago, von_Tom said:

 

It'd be quite cool to have actual pilot limitations hard-coded in to restrict views like that or to bleed in some fuzziness to account for the difficulties inherent in using peripheral vision to look backwards.  As a brief test I've just looked backwards to my right and it struck me how much the vision in my left eye (and viewing overall) was compromised by my rather elegant nose.

 

It'd be good to put the VR v owl neck arguments to bed.

 

von Tom

I actually with there was something to help with that in VR. just cant quite get that last few degrees of eye peripheral to see direct 180.  

[Roland_HUNter]

6 hours ago, F19_Haddock said:

Good stuff! Those photos are awesome. Loose straps. I've learned something today ?

"Me 109 G:
Hemmo Leino's Messerschmitt 109 G being followed by two Yak-9s, while mr. Leino climbed from them using spiral climb:
"-How well could you observe those pursuers?
It could be done quite well. There was nothing. I did see when he would...I learned to notice that there, now he is about to shoot because he tightened his turn and it could be seen that he tried... Actually it was very amusing. I was not in any trouble.
- About looking down, could you stretch yourself to look down or were you tightly strapped in the seat?
We used to pull the belts tight"
- Hemmo Leino, Finnish fighter ace. 11 victories. Source: Interview by Finnish Virtual Pilots Association.
- Notice that mr. Leino tells he is tightly strapped in his seat, yet he was able to see the two Yaks on his tail. So he had both good neck - and good visibility backwards from the cockpit. "

Source:http://www.virtualpilots.fi/feature/articles/109myths/

[von_Tom]

 

I doubt that Mr Leimo was looking directly back over his tail - more like down to his 5 or 7 o'clock.  It was a spiral climb after all.

 

@gimpy117 it's called a wingman aka meat shield.

 

von Tom

[SharpeXB]

“Only the protective armor plate behind my head kept me from being killed by a 20mm. I used to inspect all of the aircraft, as some men would take this plate out. It reduced rearward visibility by about twenty percent, so they removed it. I ordered all the plates replaced, and I made it clear I would court-martial any man who disobeyed.”

- Johannes Steinhoff The German Aces Speak II

 

So based on the above account, it’s clear that 109 pilots were able to see rearward enough to be tempted to remove the armored headrest on the 109. 

Edited March 6, 2022 by SharpeXB

[[CPT]Crunch]

They're not loose, they're on an inertia reel, just like in your auto, and there's a lever on the seat where you can swap between inertia reel and locked positions.

[SharpeXB]

13 minutes ago, [CPT]Crunch said:

They're not loose, they're on an inertia reel, just like in your auto, and there's a lever on the seat where you can swap between inertia reel and locked positions.

Can’t say how every aircraft or pilot is, but in this video you see the straps just hanging loose

 

[=420=Syphen]

On 3/4/2022 at 11:41 AM, SharpeXB said:

 

 

If I had a dime for every time you show up to a post and throw this pic up, I'd be filthy rich.  Find some fresh content.

[SharpeXB]

10 minutes ago, =420=Syphen said:

 

If I had a dime for every time you show up to a post and throw this pic up, I'd be filthy rich.  Find some fresh content.

Well that picture is worth a thousands words, so… kinda says it all. 

[-250H-Ursus_]

On 3/4/2022 at 12:31 PM, GOA_Karaya_CRI*VR* said:

This is exactly the way how we move in VR to see our 6 ( and even worst if our VR headset has limited fov as for me with 90 degree ).

 

 

No straps at all.

If one is with the belts adjusted for combat pretty much one can't move shoulders like that

Edited March 6, 2022 by -332FG-Ursus_

[Pikestance]

It seems pretty clear that you are capable of doing an exorcist maneuver to see behind you. You can clearly see in the video that the "6" view is with the peripheral vision which is not nearly as sharp. 

 

I guess falls under the category of pilot fatigue in flights. We are capable of doing maneuver after maneuver without any loss of strength or stamina. 

 

The lost of visual acuity and strength to perform high maneuvers would be cool and more realistic, but can you imagine the vile comments if they were to announce development of this in a DD.  

[=420=Syphen]

10 hours ago, SharpeXB said:

Well that picture is worth a thousands words, so… kinda says it all. 

 

Once again, that aircraft is used for demonstrations and is missing the headrest. It's not a proper example of a WW2 aircraft for cockpit equipment and visual sight lines. 

I know you'll retort "Well they removed the headrests!".. No, they removed the armor above that. 

Posting something that is modified quite different from the topic at hand isn't valid. 

 

Edited March 6, 2022 by =420=Syphen

[SharpeXB]

3 hours ago, =420=Syphen said:

Once again, that aircraft is used for demonstrations and is missing the headrest

If the pilot can’t see back there why was the headrest changed to armored glass? Steinhoff’s account mentions that the headrest “reduced visibility” not “restricted movement”

8 hours ago, -332FG-Ursus_ said:

If one is with the belts adjusted for combat pretty much one can't move shoulders like that

Source for this? “belts adjusted for combat”? The ones I find are from WWI and modern but I find it hard to imagine that this reality was any different in WWII. “Adjusted for combat” in the F-18 means loosening them apparently. 

Edited March 6, 2022 by SharpeXB

[=420=Syphen]

2 hours ago, SharpeXB said:

If the pilot can’t see back there why was the headrest changed to armored glass? Steinhoff’s account mentions that the headrest “reduced visibility” not “restricted movement”

 

 

 

The headrest and armor plate are 2 separate things. That may be where your confusion lays.... And that particular screen cap shows an aircraft that has NEITHER installed as it's meant for demonstration flights and not combat.  That allows the pilot to have improved rearward visibility over what was found in combat aircraft. 

 

You don't have to believe me - look up the aircraft in question and find photos of it sitting on a ramp. It's not exactly hard to see how it's missing all the original equipment. 

2 hours ago, SharpeXB said:

Source for this? “belts adjusted for combat”? The ones I find are from WWI and modern but I find it hard to imagine that this reality was any different in WWII. “Adjusted for combat” in the F-18 means loosening them apparently. 

 

F/A-18 NATOPS manual for you:

Quote

2.15.3.6 Shoulder Harness Inertia Reel. Pilot shoulder harness restraint is provided by a dual strap shoulder harness inertia reel mounted in the seat below the parachute container. The dual inertia reel A1-F18AC-NFM-000 I-2-130 ORIGINAL shoulder straps connect to the parachute risers which in turn are buckled to seat occupant’s upper harness. The inertia reel locks when the reel senses excessive strap velocity. Manual locking and unlocking of the reel is controlled by the shoulder harness lock/unlock handle on the left side of the seat bucket. During ejection a pyrotechnic cartridge is fired to retract the shoulder harness to position the seat occupant for ejection.

2.15.3.7 Shoulder Harness Lock/Unlock Handle. The shoulder harness lock/unlock handle on the left side of the seat bucket has two positions. To operate, the handle must be pulled up against spring pressure, moved to the desired position, and then released. FORWARD (locked) The inertia reel prevents the reel straps from being extended and ratchets any slack in the straps back into the reel. AFT (unlocked) The reel allows the pilot to lean forward, but the inertia portion of the reel continues to protect him by locking the reel when it senses excessive strap velocity. Once locked, the pilot can normally lean forward again after a slight release in pressure on the reel straps.

 

Edited March 6, 2022 by =420=Syphen

[SharpeXB]

24 minutes ago, =420=Syphen said:

You don't have to believe me

Don’t worry, I don’t believe you unless you were a 109 pilot in WWII. It’s plain from the design of all these aircraft that pilots were free enough to turn and see their 6:00. 

26 minutes ago, =420=Syphen said:

F/A-18 NATOPS manual for you:

Yes, I have the DCS Hornet so I know how this works. Again you can plainly see the pilot in the video with the straps completely loose and able to turn and see 6:00

[=420=Syphen]

13 minutes ago, SharpeXB said:

Don’t worry, I don’t believe you unless you were a 109 pilot in WWII. It’s plain from the design of all these aircraft that pilots were free enough to turn and see their 6:00. 

 

Unlike you, I am a pilot and own my own aircraft. Sorry it's not a 109.  I'll try harder next time.

[SharpeXB]

29 minutes ago, =420=Syphen said:

 

Unlike you, I am a pilot and own my own aircraft. Sorry it's not a 109.  I'll try harder next time.

I have a car and I can turn in the seat to look behind me when I back it up. 

[=420=Syphen]

16 minutes ago, SharpeXB said:

I have a car and I can turn in the seat to look behind me when I back it up. 

 

Non sequitur.  A car is not an aircraft. 

[SharpeXB]

23 minutes ago, =420=Syphen said:

 

Non sequitur.  A car is not an aircraft. 

And your aircraft is irrelevant to the discussion as well, unless it’s some sort of warbird. And a seat is a seat and a headrest is a headrest. The headrest in my car or gaming chair doesn’t prevent me from looking around it anymore than a headrest in an aircraft would. 

[=420=Syphen]

 

You genuinely are quite a dud that loves to argue for nothing. 

Enjoy your day Sharpe. Hope you come fly online again soon. 

[SharpeXB]

18 minutes ago, =420=Syphen said:

You genuinely are quite a dud that loves to argue for nothing.

Nothing except 

- period pilot accounts

- photographs 

- video footage. 
?

[[CPT]Crunch]

On 3/5/2022 at 12:50 PM, SharpeXB said:

Can’t say how every aircraft or pilot is, but in this video you see the straps just hanging loose

 

Because those are parachute leaders, not restraints.  He has no shoulder restraints, most modern fighters only have a lap belt.  Your going to eject, not attempt to crash land in one any way.  Now a non ejection seat equipped plane like a C-130 comes lap belt with full harness straps integrated as standard.

And they have inertia reels standard as selectable.

[SharpeXB]

15 minutes ago, [CPT]Crunch said:

Because those are parachute leaders, not restraints.  He has no shoulder restraints, most modern fighters only have a lap belt.  Your going to eject, not attempt to crash land in one any way.  Now a non ejection seat equipped plane like a C-130 comes lap belt with full harness straps integrated as standard.

And they have inertia reels standard as selectable.

Well bottom line, the pilot is able to turn and see his 6:00. He’s not strapped in like an F1 driver or astronaut. VR players today imagine their limitations, physical condition, headset FOV etc as simulating some sort of realism. It’s not. 

[Rache-der-Boote]

1 hour ago, SharpeXB said:

VR players today imagine their limitations, physical condition, headset FOV etc as simulating some sort of realism. It’s not. 

Bro dude, we get it, you don't like VR.

 

[SharpeXB]

43 minutes ago, perm said:

Bro dude, we get it, you don't like VR.

I don’t mind VR as long as the players don’t try to impose their limitations on everyone else. 

[Charon]

On 3/4/2022 at 8:41 AM, SharpeXB said:

 

 

I largely agree with you, but compare this photo to the first screenshot provided by OP. In the initial screenshot, the pilot's eyes are about a foot further forward, forward of the hood, and actually in front of the diagonal braces of the windshield. I don't see that particular view as possible, unless one unbelts themselves completely and sits astride the stick, or is Mr Fantastic.

 

Dead six? Sure, I've got no doubt that was possible, nor do I don't find it particularly difficult in VR. But clear vision a full 30 degrees past 6 o'clock, that seems a little much.

 

On 3/4/2022 at 5:01 PM, Roland_HUNter said:

- About looking down, could you stretch yourself to look down or were you tightly strapped in the seat?
We used to pull the belts tight"

 

These are basically all four point harnesses with a lap belt and shoulder harnesses. I don't think Leino means to say the shoulder harnesses were kept tight, only the belt.

 

Before You Fly has a very good explanation of this: the belt is to hold the pilot in the seat. The shoulder straps are locked for take-offs, landings, and acrobatics, to prevent head injuries in an accident. But they can be unlocked in flight to give the pilot more flexibility, and I've little doubt that they would have been kept unlocked in combat.

[Panzerlang]

I've read in more than one LW pilot's memoirs mention of "pulling the straps tight" just before crash landing, so some clearly flew with them loose. And without straps to impede movement it's obviously possible to twist enough in a fixed seat to see the tail (and a plane at 6 0'clock), even if only with peripheral vision.