Originally Posted by
PDR1
Interestingly in his memoirs ("Fly and Deliver" - memoirs of an ATA pilot) Hugh Bergel says the exact opposite. His view was that the standardised layout of British military aircraft (especially the six instruments in the "blind flying panel") made these aircraft much easier to assimilate than the American ones, whose cockpit layouts he describes as "haphazard". He also expressed frustration about the way that all British aircraft with supercharged engines had automatic boost control - a system which ensured that when you set (say) +6lbs of boost it stayed at +6lbs at all altitudes and throttle settings, whereas the boost control of american aircraft just controlled the wastegate and needed constant monitoring/adjustment with changes in altitude or throttle setting which (he suggests) would have been a major pain in combat and was suspected to be the cause of some engine reliability shortfalls.
I'm not saying he's right - I'm just contributing the view of a pilot who was flying a large variety of these types while they were in service.
PDR
The actual 'flying panel' with the 6 important instruments was extremely good,but the rest of the cockpit layout could be an ergonomic nightmare,I definitely agree that generally our engine controls were definitely much better/easier.