FlightGlobal.com
Home
Premium
Archive
Video
Images
Forum
Atlas
Blogs
Jobs
Shop
RSS
Email Newsletters
You are in:
Home
Aviation History
1957
1957 - 0102.PDF
102 "Flight" photograph THE PILOT'S PLACE . . . propeller, flap and undercarriage controls—and go on to Spitfires,in which it was necessary on take-off to remove the left hand from the throttle—hoping it would not inch back—and change handson the stick so as to be able to operate the undercarriage lever on the starboard side of the cockpit. In the Wellington the cockpitcontained a very functional control pedestal on the left of the pilot's seat, but the flap and undercarriage levers were incon-veniently located on the centre line of the instrument panel. As the Wellington and other British heavy aircraft of their time(among them the Halifax and Lancaster) were primarily intended for one-pilot operation, the cockpit was a raised shelf on the portside, with a gangway to starboard. In contrast, United States medium and four-engined military aircraft borrowed from thecurrent civil practice of incorporating full dual control around a central pedestal.American twin-engined attack aircraft such as the Boston, Havoc, Baltimore and Maryland had cockpit dispositions similarto those of the British Beaufighter and Hampden. In these aircraft the pilot sat between two shelves, each of which was covered withlevers, switches, wheels and buttons. A new concept in flight deck layout was introduced with the The Short Empire flying-boat ". . . had more square feet of flight deck than the [larger] Constellation." 'Flight" photograph FLIGHT "In contrast, some single-engird transport aircraft had the passenger cabin between the pilot and the engine. The D.H. Fox Moth. B-29 The layout, which incidentally is perpetuated by theRussians in the Tu-104, provided two piloting "shelves' on each side of a central gangway leading into the nose portion of the flightdeck Separate control pedestals were situated outboard of each pilot! In the 314 flying-boat Boeings used a similar control pedestalarrangement, but with contiguous instrument panels. The B-17 Flying Fortress had a central pedestal carrying the principal levers;and the throttles were ganged by hefty cross-handles, so that all four or a pair of engines could be operated together. Anotherunusual feature was that the flight instruments were not dupli- cated, so that with the paired engine instruments in front of thesecond pilot and the flight instruments in the middle, the captain s instrument panel sported virtually nothing more than an eight-dayclock and a few lights. . While the layouts adopted for military aircraft make a mostinteresting study they cannot contribute much to civil aircraft design, as the requirements are so very different. In some respectsit is true to say that large military aircraft have not had the same degree of concentration of instruments and controls as in a civilaircraft, where revenue considerations make it necessary for the designer to push the operating crew and their equipment into thesmallest possible volume. Air force aircraft have either had the minimum crew compressed into the smallest cockpit, as in theMosquito or modern jet fighter/bombers, or each member of a very large crew has had his own private office—as in theWellington and other British bombers. Nowadays, pressurization and centralized weapon control have made designers concentratethe three- or five-man crew of a jet bomber into one compartment. Despite the numerous variations that have been tried there isa general tendency for the layout of the pilot's pan of the cockpits of medium and large civil aircraft to settle down to a commonpattern: a central control pedestal flanked by the pilot's seats facing the main instrument display. Other members of the crew,such as flight engineers and navigators, do not fare so well and are given the meagre accommodation that remains after the two pilotshave staked their claim for floor space. For some reason not all designers agree with the elementary principle that a flight engineershould sit facing forward so that the instruments and controls on his panel are related to the actual disposition of the aircraft'scomponents. Admittedly, the use of the terms "port" and "star- board" is supposed to prevent confusion, but during an emergencyit is very easy, when facing aft, to select the wrong extremity of a row of switches. Incidents have occurred, and will continue tooccur, unless the relationship between similar and handed instru- ments and controls is given the most careful consideration. Thelatest issue of British Civil Airworthiness Requirements recognizes the potential danger of the flight engineer "with his back to theengine" and therefore prohibits such an arrangement. When the Stratocruiser was developed from the B-50 a newflight-deck layout appeared. The principal innovation was the provision of gangways outboard of the pilot's seats (access to theco-pilot's seat is outboard of the flight engineer's panel), which allowed them to sit down without having to push by or jump overthe central control pedestal. The Stratocruiser layout was designed to make the co-ordination of the work of the three flight-crewmembers—captain, co-pilot and flight engineer—as easy as pos- sible, and at the same time it allowed the installation of a simplearrangement of dual throttle and propeller controls. In this air- craft the flight engineer can either face forward—so that he canuse the pilot's controls on the central pedestal—or face the main engine and services panel on the starboard side of the flight deck. Possibly the Stratocruiser layout is the best combination of crewpositions, visibility characteristics and crew comfort developed since the demise of the flying-boat. Of course, such a spaciousdeck takes up valuable revenue space, and consequently is not very popular outside piloting circles. The minimum width of fuselagerequired for "outside" access to the seats makes it necessary to push the crew as far into the pointed nose as possible and com-promises even the best intentions towards crew consideration. It does not look as though the Stratocruiser layout will be per-petuated in other designs, which is a pity, for although it has faults it does have a majesty in keeping with the rest of the aircraft. Both pilots and designers must be influenced to a certain extentby the control layout of an aircraft type or series which exists in large numbers throughout the world. An example is the DC-4and its successors. The Douglas company have managed to make the layout of the flight deck independent of the type of service oroperation so that the same DC four-engined aircraft can be operated on long- and short-haul internal routes, on transatlanticservices or as a military transport. The three-on-a-bench type of control position has proved to be adequate for most types ofservice. The captain, flight engineer and co-pilot sit in front of an instrument panel and a pedestal which forms a control faciaextending from deck to roof, broken only by the windows at eye- The general observation which can be made after studying the
Sign up to
Flight Digital Magazine
Flight Print Magazine
Airline Business Magazine
E-newsletters
RSS
Events
