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

[Bruno]

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.

Nonsense...

It's the data that tells us which should turn better, not the anecdotes... There's no data that tell us a P-47 should out turn a Spitfire. However, like with the 109s above, I can post an anecdote or two that will claim a P-47 can out turn a Spitfire.

Anecdotes aren't evidence.

[Bruno]

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

There sure is. Anecdotes put us in the cockpit with the pilots, with what they are thinking and give us insight into their perspective. Even those written many years after the fact provide something even if it's incomplete. However, we should attempt to understand them in the correct context.

They are valuable and interesting but only to a point. They can not be used to accurately model aircraft in a game like AH. First, they are far too subjective and many times anecdotes involving similar plane types contradict each other.

[AutoPilot]

Looks like he has a you better listen too me cuz i am right and your wrong complex.

I have had a conversation with Mr.Hartmann and he told me different than what Bruno said.But what do we know we are just anecdotez.

[Bruno]

What language was that..?

Hartmann's career is well documented, there are several images of his personal aircraft. If you have special information ( *caugh* ) then please provide it, I am sure others will be interested...

[Oldman731]

Originally posted by Bruno
Nonsense...

Well.  I've said my piece.  Not expecting to change a lot of minds around here.

- oldman

[gatt]

Differences between a/c of different countries and even between variants of the same a/c are way overrated here. In the JaPo monograph about the 109K you can find an interesting concept: even during 1944 LW pilots didnt care too much about which 109G or K variant they had to fly every day: late G-6, G-14, AS or not, G-10 or K-4 ... the main thing the were worried about was the manteinance state of the aircraft.

[AutoPilot]

Gatt,

This is from a Interview with franz Stigler i took from:

http://109lair.hobbyvista.com/index1024.htm



Which was the first Model was it?

F

 How did you like it?

I liked it a more than any other one

Yeah…and where is a G…(Franz looks around date the multitude of painting and photographs)… that is a G model here…(Franz points to another smaller painting, again featuring a G-6 in his original colours)…that’s the last 109 I was flying.
The last one you flew was a G?

Yeah…actually it was a K model, but uh…we used it as a G model, you know…and then I was a…a pilot for the 262 also.
 …But most pilots preferred, like yourself, the F models and the earlier G’s, like the G-2.  What was the reason behind that?

The G6 basically had a heavier motor and could fly higher…not more speed, but that’s it…it starts getting heavier every time they put something new in.

The armament, you used on the Messerschmitt…you used the Mk108 cannon…

Yeah we had it in the middle…we had two centimetre…or later a three centimetre Cannon…and then a thirty millimetre on top…two of them.

There was a gunsite for a Me262 (EZ42)…my friend Roger waned me to ask you about it…

Yeah…on the 262 it adjusted itself for the speed and acceleration, so…it was a Revi too, for all aircraft types it was the Revis…but o the 262 you saw it in the windshield…the reflection
Did you choose the camouflage yourself…your own emblem?  

Oh yeah, you could put your girlfriends name on…like this one here…that’s my first wife’s name on here (points to a picture of a G-6).  But, uh…sometimes you’d change the name so often (Franz smiles)…you’d go to a new airport and have a new girlfriend…and then you would have to put on a new one…  


I really like the comment about a different girls name on the plane at each different airfield.

Curious if HT will incorporate the 262 gunsight in game or not.

[MiloMorai]

Only some of the 1300 or so 262s produced got the EZ42. Even those that did get it had the computing part locked out.

Here is a drawing of the EZ42 which shows the reflector glass as on the 16B. So what is Stigler talking about?



The 16B

[gatt]

thirty millimetre on top ... two of them

I want it!

[MiloMorai]

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
thirty millimetre on top ... two of them

Originally posted by gatt
I want it!

Maybe that is where Green got his idea of 151/20 cowl guns.

[Bruno]

I am sure he meant the MG131 2 x thirteen millimetre. Either he mis-spoke or the interviewer mis-heard or mis-typed...

But here we have it, a pilot anecdote of 3cm in the cowl...

[sarcasm]Franz certainly wouldn't lie, it must be true...[/sarcasm]

[Knegel]

Originally posted by Bruno
Read what I wrote:



Here's a quick anecdote or two:



and another



So here you have it:

109s should out trun Spitfires..!

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

As I said:



 

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



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...

Hi,

and? Who tell you that the 109E4 wasnt able to turn with the Spit1a??

And what datas tell you how exact we shal model the turn behaviour of the Spit1a and 109E4(actually the stall speed of both planes was almost the same)??

I saw calculations where the 109G2(without usage of the slats) had a smaler liftload than the SpitIXc.

Isnt it at the end same subjective which of the different datas we believe and use?
Even the better documentted datas, like Vmax and climb ratio, same like some CLmax and critical mach numbers,  show big discrepancies depending to the specific plane and circumstances while the tests.

How many theatres got into a flamewar cause different people brought up different calculations based on different datas?

Anecdotes are subjective, we know they are, while many calculations make us believe they are not, but thats simply not true!

Since calculations, same like most test datas tend to be subjective or to get used in a subjective way, all informations are only as much worth as the FM/DM maker is able to value them objective.
No matter how the result wil be, there always will someone use anecdotes or calculations to proof the addonmaker wrong and both can be right, but since even the addonmaker cant know if his calculations are right, this simply dont matter. At the end all have to be somewhat credible and the customer need to like the result.
And here we are back again: What is credible?
Isnt credibility based on the users knowledge?

For me it dont looks like Ah is going the bad way of IL-2, where the FM/DM´s got adjusted after some biased complaints.

Greetings, Knegel

[Kweassa]

The difference is, Knegel, numbers can be tracked down, verified, and recalculated to prove which is right and which is wrong. Not to mention physics don't lie. The physics and principles of flight have been long reseacrhed, about what makes a plane perform in what way. If calculations are wrong, then people can easily find and point out exactly which of the variables are wrong.


 Compared to that, how do you verify conflicting memories? Brain biopsy? Not to mention the fact that psychologically, people either, a) remember only what they want to remember, or b) remember it in their own version, or c) both.


 When modelling something, the line has to be drawn somewhere. If both calculations and memories are not objective, as you say, still I'd take calculations over memories.

[Bruno]

And what datas tell you how exact we shal model the turn behaviour of the Spit1a and 109E4(actually the stall speed of both planes was almost the same)??

I am not gonna play the same game with you as you did with HoHun in the other thread.

Turn times for the Spit Ia and 109E can be found on the web.

I didn't say all 'calculations' or all 'data' is 100% correct. Read what I wrote:

The truth is always some where in the middle and the best way to make any judgement is based on real data (when possible) not on what Mr. SuperAce recalls or thinks happened.

I didn't reply to your last post and I won't reply to another if you don't at least make an attempt to read what's written with out  jumping to unfounded conclusions or strawmen.

[HoHun]

Hi Bruno,

>I am sure he meant the MG131 2 x thirteen millimetre. Either he mis-spoke or the interviewer mis-heard or mis-typed...

Good observation! I'd blame the interviewer because Stigler mentioned (all in one sentence):

- 2 cm cannon
- 3 cm cannon
- 13/30 mm (gun)

Note that he is following the old style nomenclature with calibres stated in cm for cannon, and in the same sentence mentions a mm calibre. If he'd really meant "30 mm", he'd very likely have called it "3 cm" there, too.

Regards,

Henning (HoHun)