[Jerry W. Loper]

When Charles Lindbergh flew the Spirit of St. Louis across the Atlantic, the plane was equipped with a periscope for forward viewing. Which made me wonder: What is the military aircraft (we'll stick to planes that made it into operational service and were not just one-off prototypes or experimentals) with the worst pilot visibility?

[EvanDP]

Jerry W. Loper, on Wed 11 Mar 2009 0845, said:

When Charles Lindbergh flew the Spirit of St. Louis across the Atlantic, the plane was equipped with a periscope for forward viewing. Which made me wonder: What is the military aircraft (we'll stick to planes that made it into operational service and were not just one-off prototypes or experimentals) with the worst pilot visibility?

I don't know if it's the worst but I remember as a kid looking at an F-102 at an airshow (at least I think it was) and wondering how do you fly with a part of the frame right down the middle of your field of view? :unsure:

Cool looking plane though. :)

[ShotMagnet]

At a guess, the ME-109, the P-47C (and some early -D's), the F4F, the F6F, and the 'birdcage' Corsairs. Again, at a guess; noting the canopy arrangement and configuration of each.


Shot

[Josh]

Plenty of MiGs might qualify. MiG-25 in particular comes to mind.

[mobryan]

jua, on Wed 11 Mar 2009 1255, said:

Plenty of MiGs might qualify. MiG-25 in particular comes to mind.

SR-71, except that there isn't much to see @ Mach 3 & 80,000ft.

U-2 needed a periscope for level flight. I'm not sure if they fixed that with the U-2R's or not.


Matt

[Luke Y]

The MiG 23 was pretty nasty, same with the later Fishbeds.

You'll find there are a lot with similar weakness, but I doubt you'll find one completely enclosed or similar...

[nexus6]

often wondered how good the visibilty is in the bomber version of the canberra. it dosent look to good and looks like a lot of distortion could be a problem.

still a favorite plane of mine though :)

[shep854]

mobryan, on Thu 12 Mar 2009 0003, said:

U-2 needed a periscope for level flight. I'm not sure if they fixed that with the U-2R's or not.
Matt

I'm pretty sure the 'scope was a ground tracking device.
"One of the most unusual instruments in the newest version of the U-2 is the off-the-shelf Sony video camera that functions as a digital replacement for the purely optical viewsight (an upside down periscope-like viewing device) that was used in older variants to get a precise view of the terrain directly below the aircraft, especially during landing."--Wiki

The training model did have a periscope for for forward viz from the rear cockpit.

This post has been edited by shep854: 12 March 2009 - 0758 AM

[JamesR]

The Soviet T-4 was never mass produced but it had zero forward visibility unless it lowered its nose (for landings).

[lastdingo]

Hs129, hundreds built and terrible visibility.
The A version had only vision slits...

[Cromwell]

Cessna 152!

[MiloMorai]

ShotMagnet, on Wed 11 Mar 2009 1731, said:

At a guess, the ME-109, the P-47C (and some early -D's), the F4F, the F6F, and the 'birdcage' Corsairs. Again, at a guess; noting the canopy arrangement and configuration of each.
Shot

Might as well say any 'razor back' fighter then.

[Stuart Galbraith]

nexus6, on Thu 12 Mar 2009 0506, said:

often wondered how good the visibilty is in the bomber version of the canberra. it dosent look to good and looks like a lot of distortion could be a problem.

still a favorite plane of mine though :)

Ive sat in the nose of one with the bubble canopy (as opposed to the side saddle one) and it wasnt too bad as I recall. The view probably wouldnt be too bad in a curving approach to the left. Im guessing some dazzle from sunlight might have been a problem though, and it was a little like sitting under a small greenhouse. :)

What about the Tu22 Blinder? Centre split in the canopy, so they sit the bang seat slightly off from centre line so you can see past it. Too bad an idea, if it wasnt such a small cockpit.....

Vulcan wasnt a bad view, if you were looking straight in front of you, or you had jettisoned the canopy.

[Sikkiyn]

Cromwell, on Tue 17 Mar 2009 0856, said:

Cessna 152!

Surely you jest?
I did my flight training in a 152, back in the 80s, and enjoyed the visibility.

[shep854]

Cromwell, on Tue 17 Mar 2009 1356, said:

Cessna 152!

HA! I got my private rating in 152s, but when I went on to other aircraft (172s, 182, and Piper Cherokee/Warrior/Arrow), I was amazed at the amount of upward visibility through the windscreen those planes had compared to the 152. When I went back to a 152, I felt like I was looking out a tunnel.

[Mk 1]

shep854, on Fri 20 Mar 2009 0039, said:

HA! I got my private rating in 152s, but when I went on to other aircraft (172s, 182, and Piper Cherokee/Warrior/Arrow), I was amazed at the amount of upward visibility through the windscreen those planes had compared to the 152. When I went back to a 152, I felt like I was looking out a tunnel.

Hmm. When I was working on my rating in a 152 I recall an almost completely un-obstructed view forward, to the right, and downward. Only a little constricted forward and up (though no visibility straight up), but very poor visibility to the left.

Of course at the time I was holding the wing strut with both hands, standing with my left foot on the right main wheel, and my right foot dangling 3,000 ft above the ground ... :blink:

-Mark 1

This post has been edited by Mk 1: 19 March 2009 - 2219 PM

[shep854]

Skydiving from a 152? :blink: THAT'S a new one to me!

[Sikkiyn]

shep854, on Thu 19 Mar 2009 1939, said:

HA! I got my private rating in 152s, but when I went on to other aircraft (172s, 182, and Piper Cherokee/Warrior/Arrow), I was amazed at the amount of upward visibility through the windscreen those planes had compared to the 152. When I went back to a 152, I felt like I was looking out a tunnel.

Took a turbo-arrow up recently, so you can compare the up/down view of the two, high vs low wing.
I prefer having a better side-side and downwards view than an upwards.

shep854, on Thu 19 Mar 2009 2241, said:

Skydiving from a 152? :blink: THAT'S a new one to me!

Not that uncommon actually.

[shep854]

Sikkiyn, on Fri 20 Mar 2009 0423, said:

Took a turbo-arrow up recently, so you can compare the up/down view of the two, high vs low wing.
I prefer having a better side-side and downwards view than an upwards.
Not that uncommon actually.

A high-wing also gives good shade to the side windows and cover from rain. :) Otherwise, my response to the high-low wing debate has been, "Whichever one I'm flying at the moment." Right now, I'd be delighted to fly ANYTHING!!! There's a slight money problem, though... :huh:

That said, one thing that impressed me when I started flying a 172 was how well I could see upwards by simply leaning forward; this is a very nice feature during turns (especially steep turns). I missed that in 152s.

[Cromwell]

Sikkiyn, on Thu 19 Mar 2009 1335, said:

Surely you jest?
I did my flight training in a 152, back in the 80s, and enjoyed the visibility.

Actually I think it because I am a sitting dwarf (long legs, shorter body) So when I put the seat back, it seems to go lower. For some reason in larger light aircraft this is less of a prob. I SOLO'd in a 152, but carried on in 172, 182 and all the others. One day I came back to a 152 and felt like Linberg. It is a lovely plane, especially the Aerobat where much mischief can be accomplished.

DC-3 and Beech 18 and Lockheed Loadstar (Howard 250) - THEY where planes that had zero forward viz on the ground. Try taxying with the rain with your head out the window!