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

[AutoPilot]

can see having 1, but 1 for every 109? Why bother?

He didn't just fly one model of the 109 the entire war.I think Mr.Hartmann has more than earned a little more than you calling his colors boring.He still is the holder of the most kills.

Forget it anyway i hate too have you be so bored.i should have asked a fan of the 109 instead,i just thought since you were one of the best skinners you would.I was wrong.

[Krusty]

Like I said he didn't have a tulip on all his planes. There were only 1 or 2 that might have had it, one being a G6 the other being a G14 (which Raven just did). I don't even know for sure the specifics about the G-6. There wouldn't be one for the G2, the F4, the K4, or the E4 (wow, lots of -4s in the 109 line!)

[Widewing]

Originally posted by AutoPilot
I respectfully request that you or someone make the
"Black Tulip" skin.

Raven's Hartmann G-14... It's a beauty.



My regards,

Widewing

[AutoPilot]

Yea i like the skin except the nose is not black.

I prefer too fly the E,F, and other G model 109's than the G-14.Wish for the day too have a G-2 painted up like the greatest fighter pilot in fighter pilot history's plane.That is all really, that would cap off meeeting him and having Mr.Hartmann sign a painting i have depicting his G-2 over the eastern front.

the effort as always widewing.People should take example from you sir!

[Bruno]

I think it is very unwise to ignore or dismiss anecdotal evidence, simply because it conflicts with test pilot data.

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

I am not sure what test you refer to 'as just putting the aircraft through its paces' but their are plenty of flight tests and calculations that give an accurate representation of how an aircraft should perform. Obviously not all planes of a given variant perform the same but flight tests are far more accurat then Mr. SuperAce's fish stories which are far more subjective.

When it comes to conflicting data most of the time its just a few mph here or there. Like the G-14 at 406 instead of 414 etc... Or a few hundred fpm climb

The only concern I have with the 406mph G-14 vs the 413mph G-14 is the weight. If the AH G14 has clean take-of weight of 7700 lbs then it weighs up to 385lbs to much. Its a G-14 with Gondolas. Now suppose I posted pilot anecdotes that said the G-14 was faster then the K-4, that would obviously be wrong. Anecdotal evidence, like all eyewitness evidence is open to flaws and mis-interpretations and is generally unreliable. Anecdotal evidence is only ever one sided and from one view point.

AutoPilot,

You really should read up on Hartmann if you are a fan of his. For questions try this website:

Jagdgeschwader 52

He didn't just fly one model of the 109 the entire war.I think Mr.Hartmann has more than earned a little more than you calling his colors boring.He still is the holder of the most kills.

Hartmann didn't fly a Tulip based 109 through out the war. He didn't fly Es or Fs in combat. Hartmann claimed only 1 kill in '42 (Nov) while in a G-2 (an Il2 and ws hit himself and forced to ditch). He didn't score another until the end of Jan '43...

As of 3 Jan '44 Hartman was credited with 159 kills.

The other 200 or so (193) were credited from '44 to 9 May '45.

Hartmann only flew the G-2 for a few months before converting to G-4s. He got most of kills while flying a G-6.

The skin that Raven did is supposedly of Hartmann's G-14 while he served briefly as acting Gruppenkommandeur of I./JG 53. There's very little factual evidence that proves Hartman flew this scheme while with JG53. Hartmann did fly a tulip nosed G-14 (White 1) when he was was Staffelkapitän of 4/JG52 in Hungary '44. Also, one of his G-6 lates had a tulip nose as well but he gave up the tulip nose as it made him stand out and more of a target.

AHs default G-6 skin at first was one of Hartmann's G-6s with a tulip nose. It got changed when they originally updated the 109s for AH2. It has since changed again.

[Knegel]

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

Hi,

i have to disagree!

Imho particular we can take the anecdotal of a any pilot, who fly one plane for hundrets of hours, over that of a testpilot who just fly 10 or 20 hours in the same plane, if it comes to the planes behaviour.

Also regarding the performence relation between some planes real flight experiences can give a absolut different picture than test datas.

Of course we need to know the exact background and the anecdote need to base on many experiences. Its not enough if i pilot say: 'once i was able to outdive the other plane'. He must have been able to reproduce the experience to a stage where he could use it as part of his tactic.

Testresults are also not much worth while comparing planeperformences, if we dont know how the result exact was produced.

Regarding the Vmax, we need to know the powersetting, but also if the speed got reached after a dive or out of a horizontal acceleration.
Regarding the turn we need to know if the testpilot realy did know the plane exact to be able to make the most tight turn. If enemy testers made the test, how good they did know the planes to be able to make good tests etc.
Many tests we refer to dont show exact describtions of the background.
Often we dont know if the radiator flaps was open or not, or what powersertting got used.
Many testdatas show strange discrepancys of the norm power and the displayed power etc.

I think the pilot anecdotals can be one part of the mosaik, same like other testdatas.

As we know many myths got born out of bad tests or wrong/bad interpreted test.

If we look to most anecdotals we can find a proof in this or that test.
At the end many plane performence relations of different planetypes was pretty much on the edge, so it depends to the condition of every single plane and pilot who is faster, turn better etc, and while creating a Sim FM/DM at the end it depends to what we wanna believe and what gameplay results we wanna see.

Greetings, Knegel

[Oldman731]

Originally posted by Knegel
I think the pilot anecdotals can be one part of the mosaik, same like other testdatas.

Agreed.  No one is saying that anecdotal evidence is the be-all-end-all.  But saying that it's completely worthless is being willfully ignorant.

- oldman

[HoHun]

Hi Oldman,

>No one is saying that anecdotal evidence is the be-all-end-all.  But saying that it's completely worthless is being willfully ignorant.

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)

[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.....

[Bruno]

Originally posted by Angus
Anecdotes worthless? No.

Read what I wrote:

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

Here's a quick anecdote or two:

Me 109 E:
"In personally facing the RAF in the air over the Dunkirk encirclement, I found that the Bf 109 E was faster, possessed a higher rate of climb, but was somewhat less manouverable than the RAF fighters. Nevertheless, during the campaign, no Spitfire or Hurricane ever turned inside my plane."
- Herbert Kaiser, German fighter ace. 68 victories. Source:The Great Book of WW2 Airplanes, page 470.

and another

... For us, the more experienced pilots, real manoeuvring only started when the slats were out. For this reason it is possible to find pilots from that period (1940) who will tell you that the Spitfire turned better than the Bf 109. That is not true. I myself had many dogfights with Spitfires and I could always out-turn them.

Erwin Leykauf, German fighter pilot, 33 victories. Source: Messerschmitt Bf109

So here you have it:

109s should out trun Spitfires..!

I can post more of the same if you like...

As I said:

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

Originally posted by Angus
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.....

All folks do is cherry pick the anecdotes that confirm what ever pre-concieved ideas they already have. As Hohun said:

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.

Anecdotes maybe interesting, they may give some insight into a pilots perspective in the given instance described, but as I said an anecdote only tells one side and is limited in what it can tell you.

For example, anecdotes like 'I out dived all P-47s', or 'I out turned all Spitfires' offers nothing that can be relied upon when attempting to model the correct performance of a 109 in AH or any other game. For every anecdote you post I bet I can find at least one that says the exact opposite.

I understand some of you can't comprehend that, that's why many threads about aircraft performance or modeling get so heated on this forum, but anecdotes are worthless when it comes to accurately modeling aircraft for a game...

Ask HTC or Pyro how much pilot 'anecdotal' evidence they use to model aircraft in AH...

[Oldman731]

Originally posted by Bruno
I understand some of you can't comprehend that, that's why many threads about aircraft performance or modeling get so heated on this forum, but anecdotes are worthless when it comes to accurately modeling aircraft for a game...

Hmmm, bad day at work?

You perhaps never flew in AW.  Our P-47 in that game was based on the best statistics available to the designers.  It was repeatedly challenged, not because people had better statistics, but because the model was so completely out of synch with virtually all anecdotal evidence.  I remember listening to the same sort of thing you're repeating here, but in the end the test data is still subject to human error, as are the anecdotes.

Don't mistake my meaning, clearly the flight models should be based on the best stats available, because those are the best evidence available, but the anecdotal evidence is at least a potential reality check that we should pay attention to.  Neither HoHun nor Angus disagree with this, it seems to me.

- oldman

[Bruno]

Hmmm, bad day at work?

You mean this:

But saying that it's completely worthless is being willfully ignorant.

Anyway...

You perhaps never flew in AW. Our P-47 in that game was based on the best statistics available to the designers. It was repeatedly challenged, not because people had better statistics, but because the model was so completely out of synch with virtually all anecdotal evidence. I remember listening to the same sort of thing you're repeating here, but in the end the test data is still subject to human error, as are the anecdotes.

Because AW adjusted an FM based on whines isn't evidence of the validity of pilot anecdotes as a source. In Il2/FB Oleg has adjusted certain things based on whines as well, in one instance he said so directly and didn't attribute changes to 'now that I think about it these anecdotes must be accurate'.

Typically folks will decide an FM is wrong, then go find anecdotes to support that. Then comes the mass hysteria, folks with an interest in seeing their pet plane improve jump on the band wagon and repeat the same anecdotes. You still have folks claiming Jug pilots destroyed MBTs by bouncing .50 cals off the ground, or welding tank crews in their mount by shooting up the hatches based on one or two ridiculous anecdotes.

If you choose to believe an anecdote that is one thing, I doubt HTC will start modeling AH aircraft on that belief despite what the great folks over at AW did.

[HoHun]

Hi Bruno,

>Because AW adjusted an FM based on whines isn't evidence of the validity of pilot anecdotes as a source.

Actually, they didn't adjust the flight modelling :-)

I don't think the P-47 was actually all that bad in Air Warrior - it could be flown quite successfully as long as was kept above 17000 ft. It was quite mediocre down load, which - considering that it was an unspecified version - is quite credible, too.

The one thing that was a bit suspect was the lack of diving controllability. A relatively low limiting Mach number is supported by what we know about the aircraft, but the lack of roll control below that number was not what I expected. (Not that any of the anecdotes I read was specific enough to verify it.)

When the flight model was actually changed, climb rate and speed were affected, and I believe they overdid that somewhat. The real problem with the Air Warrior P-47 lay in an area no one ever suspected from anecdotes :-)

Regards,

Henning (HoHun)

[Oldman731]

Originally posted by Bruno
You mean this:

Good point.  Sorry.

Probably we aren't that far off.  If HTC modeled the Spit so that it got outturned by the P-47, no matter how good the data was, I suspect you might object.

Always pays to consider all evidence, not just some.

- oldman (and stop being so wilfully ignorant, for pete's sake)

[Kev367th]

Problem with anecdotes -

Most are written or recalled years, if not decades after the actual event itself.

I bet most of them couldn't remember the actual speeds, turn rates etc 10 mins after landing, let alone years after.

Test data on the other hand is in as much of controlled environment as is possible at the time, with figures and performance data collected as the test goes on.

Good example -
A few 262 pilots claimed to have broken the sound barrier (anecdotal).

But-
We all know that this was not possible.

Dunno-
Theres a place for anecdotes but IMO only for good reading.