Bharat Rakshak

so said the worst ergonomic designers the world has known, the Soviets.

I don't know about that shade of blue, but I'm sure pilots would've appreciated better placement of instruments, less clutter in the cockpit and a good view of the outside for good situational awareness as compared to a shade of blue to subconsciously help reduce my stress. Strangely enough, the factors that consciously increase stress and workload somehow didn't matter much to Soviet designers.

Additionally, it is strange that the developers around the world would not adopt this easy to follow example ... afterall, if it is less stressful, everybody in the world would want it.

FWIW I recall reading that a lot of research went into that colour. Your answer is probably along the same lines as why the underside of fighters aren't painted pink even though that would be much the best camo colour.

Incidentally I know the Douglas DC-9 has the same blue/green colour. See, the TFTA yanks do it too.

At the same time, it could also be said that the so called "worst designers in the world" might have done some study to have come to said conclusion and did not just arbitrarily put that color. Ergonomics/pilot comfort were certainly not their strengths according to many, but perhaps they were limited by the kind of h/w available to them, and under the circumstances did the best that they could - the idea that they did not research cockpit setups/pilot comfort as previous comments tend to suggest is ridiculous.

Quite importantly, some of their designs certainly were far better in terms of comfort as well vis a vis western counterparts. IIRC, Vishnu Som during his ride in the MiG-35 has mentioned that the 35's helmet was more comfortable than any other he has worn.

Indranil, even if it indeed is true that particular color is most soothing, I doubt NATO countries would have ever followed suit - it might have something to do with face saving and one upmanship between the two blocs during the cold war.

Frankly, from what I have seen - soviet cockpit designs vs. similar generation NATO counterparts were not so way behind, and often made up for the trouble with some other nifty performance feature such as the HMD. A cursory look at the MiG-29 vs. F-16 (which btw, was unique in its time thanks to the bubble canopy) vs. M2k shows that while the 29 might look more cluttered, the difference is not critical. And as many a DACT fight has shown, at the hands of well trained pilots, the 29 arguably performed its primary mission of A2A better than the other two. There might have been a distinct gap between cockpit layouts of the west and russian designs till the 70s, but thereafter, the russkis caught up and as of today, the difference seems rather negligible.

Could be a very valid reason.

Sirjee, why this flame-baiting? I was never exalting any side. It was a genuine question in my opinion! I will side step your condescension and would actually be very grateful if you could point me to the studies that you were talking about.

I don't know, the LCA's dull grey looks somehow more soothing to me..

^ won't disagree there Nachiket - I think the LCA designers have done a fabulous job in considering pilot needs/comfort. I just hope they order this bird and its different iterations in larger amounts, more appropriate to the ahem, "status" of the up and coming "world power" or at least commensurate with one of the largest AFs in the world that is surrounded by two rather belligerent neighbors!

Btw, I think the Russki cockpit color does tend to make the instrumentation stand out more clearly in the background, I have seen some F-15 cockpit pics that tend to make the instrumentation some what blend with the background - jmt.

I wonder if this is "clean" enough for Kartik :

I don't buy that. What additional h/w did Saab have at its disposal when it came up with the Draken's cockpit back in the late 1950-early 1960s? Even today I cannot but admire how well designed it was, clean, non cluttered with a very good view for the pilot to boot. Quite a lot like the Mirage-3, which also had good forward view and while more cluttered than the Draken cockpit, was still better than the MiG-21.




And then compare it to the MiG-21 FL's cockpit


or the Su-7's cockpit


The Soviet equipment was good, but there was a genuine lack of emphasis on pilot comfort which continued through till the 1970s-80s. for e.g. IAF Su-7 pilots lost kilos of their weight after missions thanks to the lack of A/C on board. As written Sqdn Ldr OJ DSena wrote




Why then do current Aeroflot MS-21 cockpits not adopt that colour instead of a more pleasing light gray?


What stops us from putting that colour inside our Tejas cockpits? We don't have any such hangups with the Russians that the West may be considered as having. Besides, if there was any truth to that theory, I'm sure that people would put it, considering that any advantage for the pilot would be considered worthwhile.

IMO, and this is definitely my own - screw the colour (any light shade will do), concentrate on the layout of the dials, switches and instruments, declutter it as much as is possible without deleting important instruments, give the pilot a decent view of the outside.. and once you've done that, you've at least reduced mental fatigue a lot more than by just putting turquoise colour in the cockpit.

someone should have showed that Su7 photo to the Mahdi as a example of cockpit design
I am sure Mahdi would have volunteered / demanded on the spot to be allowed to clean it up.

whos the Mahdi?

the late apple boss

Like I said previously Kartik, the soviets probly did what they did out of necessity (either a lack of technology or need to drive cost down) - not simply because they were negligent or as you glibly put it, because "they were the worst ergonomic designers in the world".

Your pictures actually tend to buffer my argument:

a) The difference (in terms of ergonomics) between western vs. Rus manufacturers has certainly reduced - thank you for the MS-21 pic, it clearly brings this out.
b) In terms of h/w, iirc, the 21, did not have a HUD, which the Draken seems to have. The soviets it seems did not have the kind of streamlined sighting equipment that we see in western counterparts - they did what they could. I think the images you provided clearly show that the h/w used by the soviet a/c was decidedly bulkier underlining my previous suggestion.
c) As far as the Su-7 was concerned, it was built PRIMARILY for soviet missions - as such an AC might have been moot considering the cool weather in Roosiland. Err, that India was saddled with the same is unfortunate, but then again, at least India could afford it.

Bottomline - you want clean design, air conditioning, heating, fragrance, power options and cup holders, pay the extra $$s. If you can't, stick to Soviet stuff. It did the job. They produced cheaper, less technologically sophisticated, but rather effective weapons.

However, the idea that they were negligent towards pilot comfort purely for the sake of it, is unwarranted. It is rather obvious that they built the birds the way they did out of necessity (whatever the strategic/tactical goals may be), and not out of ignorance/negligence of pilot needs. They wouldn't be sticking toilets in their fighter-bombers otherwise!

POint being, no need to diss the teal color and their explanation behind it as though it has no value - the Russkis did it because they felt it helped. Designing a less cluttered pit might have been even more helpful perhaps, but that is not germane to this discussion. For whatever reasons, they did not/could not. I doubt that makes 'em the worst designers in the world - a comment, that has little merit - since obviously they have been able to when they chose to do so. Ditto about the idea that "factors which consciously cause pilot stress/discomfort did not matter as much to them".

not sure if this was posted , picture of 3rd prototype of PAK-FA

http://www.knaapo.ru/rus/gallery/events ... t-50-3.wbp

The Ru vs West comparison is bound to come up however the key thing to note is Ru's design philosophy like the west was driven by their war doctrine and obviously constrained by resources and technology of that time; like in any other tool it's needless to say function over form is what gets all the priority. For example the position of pilot's seat and canopy in Mig-29 does not give him as much all round visibility when compared to say F-16's canopy but then I don't think it is a mere ergonomics thing; it is a genuine real estate management problem due to the gap between Ru and Unkil's technology at that time. Why even the slot-back radar on the Mig during those days used MSI chips while the ones used by the mission computer on F-16 were all VLSI chips heck the Ts1000 which powered the slot-back alone weighed ~32Kg. Add to it the Ru requirement to be able to make this AC in huge numbers and to be able to take off from semi prepared air strips; so now we are talking about accommodating beefier landing gear into the fuselage and may be we should compare the weight and specs of the K-36D seat with the Martin Baker (afaik former is significantly heavier than the latter). Same was the case with Mig-17 vs F-86 comparison on cockpit and visibility the former was powered by a RR derived Klimov engine (they used centrifugal compressors) so the huge engine diameter gave that distinct short stove pipe like look to the Mig-17 fuselage but it meant pilot had to be seated a lot deeper in the fuselage as compared to the F-86 and that is why one will see those characteristic 3 rear view mirrors on the canopy of all the Ru fighters.

I thought the standard Soviet/Russian cockpits had the light blue paint scheme like this --> mig-21 cockpit. The su-7 cockpit photo doesnt seem to adhere to that norm. Was it of an upgraded su-7?

There is a distinction between ergonomics and effectiveness.

If operational research suggested that a spike in the middle of the aircraft seat improved pilot alertness for the duration of the sortie, there is a good chance the Russian designers would have included one on their aircraft. The pilots would not have found it particularly ergonomic (PAF might murmur dissent here ) but the PVO/VVS generals would have found it to be effective.

Same could apply to the color of the cockpit. The color could be a contributing factor to pilot effectiveness during high stress situations, but it doesn't mean that the color itself could be lovable or enjoyable.

^^^ That seems quite a convoluted justification.

I am not justifying it - I am personally dubious about the colors supposed efficacy.

My point is that looking at it from the point of view of ergonomics is beside the point. The purported Russian explanation of that color has nothing to do with ergonomics.

Yahoo says about the teal cockpit colour :

That could certainly be one explanation. But I believe that the color predates widespread use of night vision equipment in the Russian aircraft.

Another possibility is for achieving better contrast with the old Radium dialed instruments at night ?

On a lighter note it could be the favourite color of Stalin and now Putin.

BR has a twitter a/c & a FB group. jagan has a BR IAF a/c.
https://twitter.com/bharatrakshak
http://www.facebook.com/groups/115853814490/
http://www.facebook.com/BharatRakshak.IndianAirForce

the mig-27 upg went from that odd blue to dull grey.

I think the soviet blue was just the standard issue interior paint, no study mudy went into it.

CM, the mig-21 did have a HUD.

regarding cockpit ergonomics, the soviet ones were supposedly engineer's cockpit, easy for the engineers to design and upgrade and for mechanics to maintain. western ones were supposedly pilot's cockpits.

>> Putin
they no longer use it, so putin must favour grey.

The turquoise blue is more disturbing or less pleasing than just plain gray shades. jmo. I am not sure if color blindness is no-no for fighter pilots [dunno], but even a lighter sky blue would bother pilots in a low lit night flight. trainees however has more focus needs than an experienced pilots who can multi-task with confidence., so a possibility of nuisance value can be avoided by right interior colors.

As far as looks go , the LCA cockpit does suck a bit

It should not be about looks Will but about Human Factors Engineering. It was used by the Bombay Stock Exchange in 1994 to design the screens for brokers and brokerage houses so that they could take decisions quickly to place their orders for sell/buy fast.

So what is the use if it looks good and is fatiguing, does not present information in the right order and on time. Being shot down is not funny.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_factors_engineering

Cheers

precisely, but wherever possible, one must consider pleasing colors aesthetics if possible. nevertheless, usability engineering and designing is uno factor for man-machine interface, especially the kind one hears about a push button switch for FBW engagement that can be accidentally triggered. systems can be designed for such by providing confirmation or by disengaging such risky function in motion... again it is my assumption that there is no need for pilots to disengage fbw in flight like in MKI.

AFAIK see even the IAF Su-30MKI uses those blue/green colour in the cockpit , interesting na ?

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-MoxXmYp4whs/T ... 2%2529.jpg

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-tBNHKWJPLuA/T ... 1%2529.jpg

What is more interesting is the people's / pilots mindset.. they were so used to the round looking dials for all measurements and indicators.. that has been mimicked to be the design even for the digital display screen new age tech. Just highlighting people are used to certain ways, is very difficult to change.. like driving from left side to right side is a challenge. May be, they are used to a certain style.

Tremendous resistance to change perhaps is the other reason.. unless the technology overrides and it is totally new and a value addition., or it is introduced to entirely new set of pilots.

^^^ Why change when it proven to work ?

not really. there are very few (read none) shots of LCA cockpit in optimum conditions.

______________
psyche, dials let you absorb info without necessarily reading every figure. we are quicker at decoding pics (needle at extreme right means x) than reading numbers.

lot of design requirements that matters actually, but not necessarily needed here:

1. change in technology that can provide more accurate measurements/more fine grained data. [or increase in visual or tacit feedback, say on altimeter].
2. integration into HMD, where the area of display is perhaps smaller than on HUD.
3. some corrections to design is impeded by the way it is displayed currently.. I can't think of an example here., may adding another measurement unit?

Well., you are right that it is proven to work.. but when one thinks next gen, there is a chance to look at aspects what else existing designs that can be done better?
--
mahul! you are 100% right.

Who says it's proven to work ? There is not a single authoritative source that suggests that using that shade of teal influences pilot well being in the cockpit. Otherwise the question would be, what on earth is the reason for the IAF to not use that colour for ALL its cockpits?

Seems to me that those Su-30MKIs have that as the default cockpit colour (they may have been Russian built) and the IAF hasn't bothered to change it. Even our own MiG-29s don't have that teal shade inside.



Even the Indian Navy's MiG-29K has a pale gray interior.

to add to that.
original flogger cockpit on left and DARE upg cockpit on right.

Came upon this thread on airliners.net on the same subject - http://www.airliners.net/aviation-forum ... n/1683077/

For a radar tracking from top of the a/c, I am seeing all these designs are of lower RCS.

Just pure speculation here, but I can imagine that the contrast between the daytime sky and the panel is greatly reduced with the teal cockpit. It may mean that the eye's irises aren't constantly contracting and dilating when checking instruments and looking out again. With the advent of HUDs and HMDs, it may be less of an issue.

Raman ji, I was just about to type what you did. It merges in well with daytime sky colour and the instrument panels also stand out in such a scenario. My 2 cents.

Well the only answer i found when i posted this query on russian forum was

"The teal color was found a long time ago by Soviet psychologists to be the least distracting for the pilots when constantly switching their view between looking at the sky and looking at the instrument cluster."

Now its possible with the advent of LCD cockpit and compliant NVG the background colour does not matter much .....so may be the IAF has chosen to go with light grey colour and the RuAF continues to use the same teal colour on all its modern aircraft. check the cockpit of the now inducted YAK-130 same teal colour
http://www.defencetalk.com/pictures/dat ... kpit_1.jpg

I think the background colour may not matter now and every AF chooses what it thinks is appropriate.