On Tue, 10 Oct 2006 18:12:29 GMT, Yeff wrote:

On Mon, 9 Oct 2006 22:02:04 +0100, Paul J. Adam wrote:

If the brits really expected the EF to be a fighter/bomber I
doubt they would have put the canards so far forward that they obscure
the ground. They prolly would have been farther back, as they are in the
rafale.

Not that much of an issue for high-risk jobs, surely? (After all, what
was the view like out of side-by-side strikers like the F-111 and A-6?
Fine to one side, but to the right you're trying to see through the
other crewman's helmet)

It's been a long time since I read "Flight of the Intruder" but I seem to
remember something about the BN's seat being lower and maybe further back
than the pilots. Anyone know for sure?

[cross-posted to RAMN added for an authoritative answer]

The EF is showing a bit of techno-regression if they let something as
simple as canards or fuselage metalwork interfere with the view. They
need to talk to the F-35 folks about those skin mounted vid-cams and
integrated seamless helmet display to allow the intrepid aviator to
simply look through the body apparently.

Ed Rasimus
Fighter Pilot (USAF-Ret)
"When Thunder Rolled"
www.thunderchief.org
www.thundertales.blogspot.com