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?

Cool looking plane though.

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

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

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...

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

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.

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

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

Cessna 152!

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

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.

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

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 ...

-Mark 1

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

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...

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.

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!

Surely,the plane with the worst pilot visability produced in Mass. would be the Granville R-1

"One day I came back to a 152 and felt like Linberg." Well said,Cromwell!

Point on the Gee Bee. However, as with all racers, I would put them into a "semi-custom" category.

More plane there, but we did it with a 182. Fiver jumpers (in PC's or surplus military, not the tiny containers of today, and with full chest reserves), four facing forward, one facing back where the right seat and door were removed. Passing gas was something of a contest. This was over what used to be the big,empty field across N29 from Charlotte (now Lowes) Motor Speedway behind the Gulf station. Our pilot eventually got grounded on a medical because his brother hit him in the head with a brick during a family argument. Then, I went in the Army and they had moved onto a professional place in Waxhaw when I got out.

Back on topic, there was a variant of the F-84 Thunderstreak that used a tiny periscope to improve maximum speed performance, but it wasn't mass produced.

I have ridden as an observer in a 182 jump plane a few times; I always thought it was the smallest practical jump plane, from a cost per load standpoint.

My instrument instructor told me once of the fun he had as a jump pilot, relaxing foot pressure on the right brake pedal while a jumper was on the strut, standing on the wheel. He found watching the jumper (who was preparing to depart a perfectly good airplane, the dummy) running in place on the rotating tire while holding onto the wing strut quite entertaining.

We had a welded step on on the gear strut, so no "log rolling" was necessary.

One of our kindred group of about 8 jumpers was the girlfriend of my high school wrestling buddy and subsequent SEAL, Rip McAdams (how's that for a name straight out of Central Casting?). She was so small, that whoever was in the right "seat" nearest the door would have to help lift her by shoulder and crotch strap out onto the strut once we faced into the wind and did the cut (after throwing a welding rod with crepe paper on it ot to assess the winds).

Our mentor, trainer, and ASO (before Jimmy Lynn Davis, U.S. Parachute Team and later stuntman extraordinare) was a wirey little guy who'd been a USAF para-rescue guy who weighed about 130 pounds, soaking wet. He'd actually been known to go up under an open canopy when the thermals were working against him.

Parachute mods (like "double L" and 7GTU ("seven gore") were made with solding irons to cut the panels out to get steerability. I explained all this once to a couple of modern jumpers and they looked at me like I was from Mars.

Kids these days, wouldn't know a P4 harness from T-28 reserve or be able to find a Capewell with both hands

My father was a skydiver back in the 80's when students still had to jump round canopies until they reached the B or C Licence (I forget). The bulk of their kit was US mil surplus (probably via the Aust Army. Oh and yes C-172/182's were the standard jump plane, no door, static lines hooked up to the base of the pilot's seat, $5 per 1000' - and a ride of any available kid (hello 0/ ) if there was a seat free. Naturally all passengers had to wear a rig, and be informally qualified, I can still do the chest mounted reserve drill - or I think I can.


Thanks Doug, I hadn't thought about any of that in years.

shane

Civvie-wise, I jumped a 152 once, a 206 once and a Beech 18 a few times. The latter was the easiest one to get out of, obviously, but then again you never knew whether the poor old girl was going to make it up to altitude at all!

HA! I've been solo in a 152 wondering if it was going to climb at all! There was one day (mid-July in Alabama) when I was at full-power, 10⁰ nose-up, 10⁰ flaps, with the stall-warning horn beeping, showing less than 100fpm climb! I was giving a friend a ride, and quickly decided the ride needed to end.

Volplanes and Para-planes were just coming on the early '70's, but had malfunction rates of 20% (or more) so anyone jumping them usually jumped two reserves as a backup plan. And often got to use at least one of them. It was clearly the wave of the future, but a lot of bugs had to be ironed out before they gained real trust. I stayed with modified round 'chutes right up til the end when other priorities (like Vietnam) reared their ugly head and risk-taking has ceased to be a form of entertainment since it was so ubiquitous in my "daily life".
Did it a few times when I got back with the folks at Green County Skydivers in Kentucky, and got my buddy hooked up for a couple of jumps, but by then the thrill was gone and the memory of the guy I'd started with who'd gone all the way in on jump 323 kinda' cooled my ardor for this particular activity. Haven't jumped myself since ~'73. I took up stuff like a a little more racing and skiing and never put on a harness again, though I accept that the safety record far exceeds ours and the gear is amazing. Just don't feel the need anymore...sold all my gear and moved on...

It is a helluva' rush, though, and the safety record is excellent. Mostly, it was my needs that changed.

Concorde or its Russian equivalent Tu144. With nose up you don't see "nowt about owt" (directly).

Something wrong there Shep. I learnt on a 152, even with full fuel and two up, it went OK in Brisbane summertime. I loved it.

Cheers

Mick

Always check the METARS before flying; If the DA is too high, don't fly.

The question is, was he wearing a parachute when you kicked him out?

All delta winged aircraft when landing would fit that criteria.

Tired, run-out 152 trainer+green pilot="expensive lesson learned cheap". I did check the weather before setting out, but it was rather cool at T/O--I had to fly to another airport to meet my friend, and simply had not experienced those effects of hot weather. The airport I was flying out of is 700ft above sea level. On those hot summer days, the heat caused the airplane to perform as if it were above 2000ft while sitting on the ground ("density altitude" to non-pilots). I had to adjust the fuel mixture ("leaning") for that altitude before even taking off.

And no, my friend did not have a parachute, but I kicked him out close to the ground--he lived.

Was the carb heat on? - Hey we have all done it!

Nope! Believe me, I checked--repeatedly!