Prone Piloting

[GTX]

Hi folks,

Mossie asked the following in the Meteor thread:  "This opens up a whole new what-if line, how would fighter design have changed had the prone position been adopted?"

So here is a dedicated thread.

To start things off, here are two Prone Pilot Meteors, we put together:

First my crude one:

,

Then Mossie's improved version:



Regards,

GReg

[GTX]

By the way, here is the original Meteor Prone Piloting testbed:





Regards,

Greg

[Hobbes]

In the end, the designs wouldn't have changed much. You still need to put the radar in the nose, so the cockpit stays more or less in the same position, it just gets a bit longer and shallower. 

[GTX]

Maybe, but they could have ended up like this too - a crude Prone Pilotted Hunter:



Regards,

Greg

[GTX]

Or even a Prone Piloted Me-262:



Regards,

Greg

[Ed S]

Hi folks,

Mossie asked the following in the Meteor thread:  "This opens up a whole new what-if line, how would fighter design have changed had the prone position been adopted?"

So here is a dedicated thread.

To start things off, here are two Prone Pilot Meteors, we put together:

First my crude one:

,

Then Mossie's improved version:



Regards,

GReg

Dang.  Those look like some kind of goose flying around with it's neck stretched out.

Ed

[jcf]

The prone piloting concept didn't work out for mostly physiological reasons, but, what if you turn it around and go to supine piloting?
Of course the pilot wouldn't be as fully supine as someone on a luge, but would be more reclined than a Lawndart pilot.

Jon

[upnorth]

I can only imagine the sort of havok that prone piloting would play on your spine, neck and shoulders. I imagine it would certainly have shortened the careers of pilots.

[Mossie]

In the end, the designs wouldn't have changed much. You still need to put the radar in the nose, so the cockpit stays more or less in the same position, it just gets a bit longer and shallower. 

I think in the early days designs might have changed more, when day fighters didn't carry radar or small sets were carried.  Engineers were looking to eek every last bit of performance from a design & a prone position would have allowed a much slimmer aircraft.  As radar improved & became a necessisty, powerplants improved too & the need for slimmer aircraft diminished, so I guess more modern prone piloted aircraft would have less differences.  The main one I can see is that the pilot might be set as far forward as possible.  HUD's would probably been more important too.

The prone piloting concept didn't work out for mostly physiological reasons, but, what if you turn it around and go to supine piloting?
Of course the pilot wouldn't be as fully supine as someone on a luge, but would be more reclined than a Lawndart pilot.

Jon

The semi-supine position is a much better compromise, the resitance to G in this postion is less then the prone, but much better than a sitting position.  It also allows the pilot to turn his much head more than the prone position & is better in a crash situation.  Some engineering problems would need to be overcome & this is where the sitting position has won over, G-Suits & G-training have become the norm giving the piolt better resistance.  With a supine or prone position, ejecting becomes more difficult & you'd have to engineer this into the aircraft.  Not impossible, aircraft with ejection capsules or with parts of the structure being removed explosively have seen service, but more difficult engineering wise.

One area I could see the semi-prone position being adopted is air-racing.  Formula 1 & Indy cars have similar seating positions & a semi-supine position in a dedicated air-racer could give you an edge, as well as protecting you better in a crash.  You don't have to worry about ejection & they are too close  to the ground to think about parachuting out!


Formula 1 style seat, actually used in a racing yacht.

Although I can see the reasons behind adopting a sitting position in combat aircraft, It would be good to see how a prone or supine position may have influenced fighter design.  I know there were some German designs, surely there must be some designs from the early post war period where the prone or supine position was adopted?

[jcf]

The wartime Northrop XP-79 project, MX324 glider and turbojet XP-79B, used a prone pilot.

XP-79B


F-80 testbed.

In all photos, including those of the DFS 228, one of the major failings becomes apparent... the chin rest.


The F-80 was used in USAF tests that started post-war, the theories didn't pan out and to my knowledge it was not adopted in any aircraft
aside from hang-gliders.

Jon

[noxioux]

What about a 5th or 6th generation fighter with a prone or semi-supine position?  If you threw in a 360-degree view setup like they're touting for the JSF, then pilot position could be less important.

[jcf]

If you threw in a 360-degree view setup like they're touting for the JSF, then pilot position could be less important.

Exactly, the pilot can be sitting in a van. 

Jon

[Madoc]

Jon,

A Prone F-80?  Wow!  Where did you find that?  There would be an excellent Whiff that's quite real!

Madoc

[jcf]

Hi Madoc,
P-80A-1-LO 44-85044 had an interesting career as previous to the prone piloting tests it was the aircraft that tested the rotating/elevating gun nose.

Jon

[Madoc]

Jon,

Have you any other pics of that bird?

Madoc