So is the G-14 top speed going to be fixed?

[Hawco]

Originally posted by Angus
Anecdotes worthless? No.
But you have to look at them by the dozens to get a good picture and then you usually find out that they go rather nicely with the engineering issues.
I'll take 20 anecdotes that all support the same theory over 1 sheet of a measurement of 1 aircraft on one day.....

I agree with Angus here, some guys probably wouldn't remember what they had for breakfast yesterday, but I betcha all the tea in China that they will remember their first encounter with a Spit/109 etc.

[Kweassa]

I agree with Angus here, some guys probably wouldn't remember what they had for breakfast yesterday, but I betcha all the tea in China that they will remember their first encounter with a Spit/109 etc.

 They will remember it in the way they want to remember it.

 Human memory is not like taking a snapshot with a camera. Whatever info is stored in your brain is altered according to your perception of the world. If 20 people have collectively experienced a single event then there will be 20 versions of the story which have some basic similarities and yet with as much differences as there are people who remembr it. All of this is very familiar to me as I've majored in history myself and, research and analysis of existing historical records and accounts are always about "taking a grain of salt" to what the people have wrote.

 Like Hohun mentioned before, in the field of history, the assumption that first-hand accounts from people who've experienced it themselves would be more accurate than others, is something that has been debunked and discarded for almost 200 years now. In reality, people who collect and analyze data a hundred years later, are considered to have a more clear and objective picture of the whole incident than any person who was alive a hundred years ago.

[Bruno]

The 'when possible' is the problem, at the end its never exact possible, cause we never have exact datas, made by one and the same windtunnel, or hundrets of tests, where we can choose the middle. Our datas base on some lonly tests, often bad documented, made by different testers and nations, under different circumstances. To leave the anecdotes absolutly out is like believing that a bumble-bee cant fly, only cause a calculation say so.

I don't why you can't comprehend what I wrote. Either you just don't get it or you are purposely building a strawman. You can take the results of multiple tests, along with calculation, and come up with a reasonable and believable flight model.

You can't do that with 'pilot anecdotes'. As such:

Anecdotal evidence is completely worthless when it comes to accurately modeling aircraft for a game...

So far through out your of wall of text you have said nothing that comes close to challenging what I wrote with reasonable coherent argument.

And who decide which of the calculations are 100%(or 50%, 70%) correct?

Here's another fine example of a BS strawman. Quote where I said you could build an FM on 'calculations' alone. However, as HoHun said:

I'd take a lift coefficient from a NACA report over any number of turnfight anecdotes any day

btw, why do you think the 109E4 was faster above 22k alt?

I don't think that. Another 'strawman'Read what was written. Angus  wrote:

Was the BoB 109 faster than it's counterpart? Yes, and more markedly at high altitude.

Angus was referring to his experience with the old AH Spit Ia which was slower then the AH 109E above 22k or so. That Spit was modeled with 85 octane. I replied as such:

Even the 85 Octane Spit Ia, that was modeled in AH, was still faster at all altitudes up to 22k or so.

Are you purposely mis-characterizing what I wrote? Or can't comprehend what you read? Either way, I am not going to reply to your non-sense any more if you continue with this type idiocy.

Please, take one of the many open source games out there and start to create FM/DM´s, very fast you will see the limits of the known test datas regarding modeling a credible FM.

Why don't you build your FM on 'anecdotes' and I will watch as it gets universally laughed at. No developer is building FMs on anecdotes, open source or not.


AutoPilot,

You claimed to have a conversation Hartmann. I then asked if you could re-count your conversation with Hartmann with us. Instead of doing that you wrote about how you were thirteen at the time. If you have it recorded then what is the problem with summarizing it here? After all you claim Hartmann 'told you' something 'different' then what the most credible researchers and authors have written. I know several sites who would love to host your Hartmann video and would jump the chance to get it on their website.

You can 'ignore me' all you like but that won't do anything to change what you have already written in this thread.


Hawco,

Anecdotes worthless? No.
But you have to look at them by the dozens to get a good picture and then you usually find out that they go rather nicely with the engineering issues.
I'll take 20 anecdotes that all support the same theory over 1 sheet of a measurement of 1 aircraft on one day.....

The belief that if we some how weed through enough anecdotes we will find 'truth' is incorrect when it comes to anecdotes. Anecdotes are so subjective that even if several appear to be describing similiar incidents there can be factors, unobserved or unaware to the pilot recounting the anecdote, that put his tail in a class by itself.  

As HoHun said:

Oh, well, sometimes it's actually wose than worthless because it's completely misleading.

The thing is that the pilots often don't have the engineering background, but frequently put their observation into engineering jargon, which is then read by people who themselves lack the engineering background, too, who firmly believe it's the literal truth though it is, at best, a well-informed misunderstanding.

One can learn much from pilot's anecdotes, but one has to be very diligent about trying to understand what was really going on, and few anecdotes supply the exhaustive description that would be necessary for a reliable analysis.

I'd take a lift coefficient from a NACA report over any number of turnfight anecdotes any day, especially as in WW2, the concept of energy combat hadn't been invented yet and the pilots didn't distinguish between sustained and negative power turns.

The problem aren't really the anecdotes themselves, the problem are anecdote wielders who pick two or three of them out of the never-ending supply because they confirm their prejudices so well and then start a flame war on some forum, bashing everyone who disagrees with their conclusions from their neat hand-picked anecdotes.

Regards,

Henning (HoHun)

[hitech]

Im a pilot with about 300 - 400 in my RV8, I know the plane fairly well.

Now a few simple questions That I can not answere.

At full throttle and full rpm what is the max climb rate.

Answer I have no idea. I do this climb every take off I do. But guess what, I never have looked at the VSI during this stage of flight.

And here would be an antidote.

With full flaps and full back throttle on aproch. The RV8 will drop like a rock.

Now ask me what the decent rate is in that condition. Again I have no idea. Because once again I do not look at the decent rate in this stage of flight.

This is where test pilots shine. They don't  just fly, but wrather are gathering this type of data on an airplane. No amount of hours , kills, or antidotes is a replacement for DATA. and antidotes are not data, they are just and impresion of data.

I.E. Give me the report of a test pilot flying for 10 hours, vs the antidote of someone with 1000's of hours in a plane any day.

[AutoPilot]

Deleted for personal attack.

[Oldman731]

Originally posted by Kweassa
Like Hohun mentioned before, in the field of history, the assumption that first-hand accounts from people who've experienced it themselves would be more accurate than others, is something that has been debunked and discarded for almost 200 years now. In reality, people who collect and analyze data a hundred years later, are considered to have a more clear and objective picture of the whole incident than any person who was alive a hundred years ago.

Um, this certainly was not so when I got my history degree.  Primary sources are, and have always been, the raw material of historical research.  Data used by the analysts was collected by those sources.  Who considers the centuries-later data analysts to be more accurate?

You, and others, are ignoring one of the points here, and overemphasizing another.  Ignored is the point that the test pilot data is itself subject to human error.  It's clearly better than no data at all, but simply because someone writes numbers on a paper is not a guarantee that the numbers are accurate.  Overemphasized is the point that anecdotal evidence is useful.  No one is saying that HTC should construct flight models based on Steve Canyon's old war stories.  We're saying that those old war stories are a useful check on data which is, itself, subject to error.

- oldman

[Shifty]

Originally posted by AutoPilot


It is an escape from reality,a way too bring out the 10 year old kid in all of us,meet up with some good friends and have fun playing a GAME.

Let's settle this discussion of the 109 Vs. Spit in the sky's while playing a GAME.
 

Good reminder, even to yourself. You called Hawco a timid fighter pilot earlier in this thread. There are a few real fighter pilots that fly AH. However the majority of us are not, and never will be. The best part  is Hawco is a real combat vet with the British Army , and your insulting him over a game.

Priceless

[HoHun]

Hi Oldman,

>Primary sources are, and have always been, the raw material of historical research.  

NACA reports are primary sources, too. Critical evaluation has to be applied to all sources, and methodically prepared, extensively documented, quantified test pilot reports look much better in such an evaluation that "oral history" pilot's anecdotes.

I'm all for critical treatment of historic flight tests because there are many around that were done with imperfect aircraft. However, due to the scientific nature of the flight tests, it's often possible to identify and quantify the error and use engineering methods to get a representative picture anyway.

Anecdotes don't lend themselves to this kind of analysis, but I agree with you that they can be used to a validate conclusions drawn from flight test data. Often anecdotes I have know for a long time take appear in a new light after a close look at engineering data - I have told myself "Oh, now I know what he meant!" more than once. No way to figure that out with any degree of reliability on the anecdotes alone, though!

Regards,

Henning (HoHun)

[AutoPilot]

Like i said, settle it in the sky's.

[Bruno]

I.E. Give me the report of a test pilot flying for 10 hours, vs the antidote of someone with 1000's of hours in a plane any day.

I think HT has settled it...

[Kev367th]

Originally posted by Bruno
I think HT has settled it...

Yup, and I believe way, way back I basically said the same thing.

[Angus]

Some of you need more antidote

Anyway, this:

"I'd take a lift coefficient from a NACA report over any number of turnfight anecdotes any day, especially as in WW2, the concept of energy combat hadn't been invented yet and the pilots didn't distinguish between sustained and negative power turns."

I've never seen a report properly covering the angle of bank properly. Anyone?

[Knegel]

Hi Bruno,


Sorry if i got you wrong regarding the 109E speed, but this sentence simply didnt sounds like refering to a current existing FM.
"The Spitfire with 100 octane / CS prop could out climb, was faster and out turn the 109E. Even with out the 100 octane fuel the 109E was only faster above 22k or so and combat above 20k during BoB was limited."
Angus former post, where you did reply too, wasnt refering to AH, he rather made a conclusion based on the anecdotes he quoted. Some posts later you talk about the AH Spit.

And maybe you still dont got it: I dont wanna create FM´s based on anecdotes, but at the end they are one part of the knowledge we have.

I know at least one important sim developer, who base the plane performence on requests of customers and at the end no developer is able to ignore the anecdots, when it comes to finetuning. I better would adjusted the stall behaviour of the 190 or 109 basing on german pilot anecdotes than on what british testers told about.

If you look to older sim´s, like AW, SWOTL or EAW you will find that the performence relations mainly did base on anecdotes. Particular the FM´s was somewhat a caricature of the anecdotes, where the 109´s was much to fast but couldnt sustaine turn at all, while the Spits could turn like mad without e-bleed etc.
And if you look to the turnperformence of the AH P38, there seems to be some influence of anecdotes as well.

The try to base FM´s exact on tested datas already did split some developer groups, cause they couldnt agree to what datas and formulas (to calculate some performences) should get used.  

Can you please tell me which of the often very different available Clmax you wanna use?? Which of the available climbratios? Which of the Available speeds?

If you create a FM, you need to make a decission what exact performence the different planes will have in relation to each other. On what do you will base this decission, if you know that the range of availavle credible values(grey zone of realism) can result in absolut different performence relations ?

Sure, if the different of a performence is extreme, like between P51 and Zero, we can get a relative good picture,  but whats about planes like La5, SpitIXc, 109F4, 109G2, Yak9 etc, which show a much more similar performence depending to the power(altitude)?  

Actually i cant proof that anecdotes are important while creating FM´s, i only can tell you my experience, you need to make your own experiences while creating fm´s,  to be able to agree or disagree, based on more than a wishfull thought.



Hi hitech,

i think noone here try to say that test results are worthless or that anecdotes are able to describe exact performences, its more the performence relation where they can give a hint. They also can help to point to possible calculation mistakes or mistakes while making tests or using test results. Actually some conclusions in tests remind me to an anecdote.

Imho, the test results and anecdotes often stand in a close correlation, its more easy to value and understand a anecdote with help of tested datas and the other way around.

Of course, if we would have perfect datas for every plane, we dont would need any anecdotes, but unfortunately we dont.


Greetings, Knegel

[Waffle]

Milo -

Do you have those scans of the 262 gunsite at a higher resolution?

[MiloMorai]

Originally posted by Waffle BAS
Milo -

Do you have those scans of the 262 gunsite at a higher resolution?

No, but they are the Classic 262 series, Vol 2 (iirc).