Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => Aircraft and Vehicles => Topic started by: Kweassa on March 22, 2006, 02:45:46 AM
-
Seemed like every one was hesitating to ask the question, so I thought I'd take the role and get it over with :) .
Will the G-14 top speed be fixed?
At first, I thought it was a minor glitch or a bug. But then I realized that the HTC in-game charts also specify the G-14 as having 406mph top speed - which gives out the impression that the dataset HTC has chosen to be used for the G-14 is suggested that speed. If it was a minor glitch or a bug, then I would presume the in-game charts would be showing 414mph, but the plane for some reason was not reaching that speed - which in this case, is not.
In other words, I am quite worried that Pyro made his call, and that call is '406' instead of '414'. I asked HT about this when he was in the MA (politely, of course) and HT answered that he didn't know much about it, and it was Pyro's call.
So is it going to stay this way?
Or are there plans on revising this problem?
-
Yes, it'd be nice to know if the new G-14 performance is based on hard data we dont know.
-
For what is it worth:
(http://i18.photobucket.com/albums/b102/albumonline/Bf109G-14.jpg)
This is the same chart that appears in sheet GL/C-E 2 Nr. 7536/44 of 20.8.44. There it's said to be data from manufacturer, but I think it's from E'Ste-Rechlin (the Kampfleistung curve is from Rechlin measurements on Bf 109 G-6 W.Nr. 15210).
-
So our1944 Bf109G-14 with a DB605AM, is supposed to do only 652km/h (405mph) at alt? ...
Man.. that's depressing. That's roughly the same speed as our Bf109G-2.
-
That chart appear to be at least partially calculated (despite "erflogene" claim), probably just the peaks at 1,3ata/2600rpm are flight tested (at FTHs). The curves show untypical shape for hydraulic coupling and another oddity is MW 30 claim.
gripen
-
From the old thread:
109 performance notes (http://www.hitechcreations.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=164322&perpage=50&pagenumber=1)
BPNZ
Hi Everyone,
I've got a data chart showing the G14 having the same speed as the G6/R2, both with DB605AM engines:
568km/h (353mph) @ SL
665km/h (413mph) @ 5000m
Felix99
From Datenblatt A/IV/141/44, and charts A/IV/142/44 and A/IV/144/44, for the G-14/U4 w. 605AM
At Take-off and Emergency setting:
557km/h (346mph) @ SL
652km/h (405mph) @ 5000m
At Climb and Combat setting:
486km/h (301mph) @ SL
619km/h (384mph) @ 6600m
665km/h at FTH Bf-109G14/U4 with clean configuration weighing 3318 kg.
652km/h at FTH Bf-109G14/U4 with Gondolawaffen (gondolas) weighing 3501 kg
G-14 Bug Thread (http://www.hitechcreations.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=164744)
-
Really unfortunate that the takeoff weight is not indicated in the document!
The same speed on the deck, but slower between 1000m and over it!
Maybe with external tank, but speed on the deck to high, i dont think so!?
The "Kampfleistung" looks identically with the other 109G14 document!
But 109G6 speed with DB605A at "Kampfleistung" is a little bit faster!
- Performance Statistic by GLZM August-November
Me109G6 mit DB605A 1310PS - 0m Kampfleistung, 3196kg
0m 510km/h
6600m 630km/h
Me109G6 mit DB605A 1475PS - 0m Notleistung, 3196kg
0m 530km/h
6600m 640km/h
- Performance Statistic by GLZM August-November
Me109G6AS mit DB605AS 1275PS - 0m Kampfleistung, 3221kg
0m 500km/h
8800m 648km/h
Me109G6AS mit DB605AS 1435PS - 0m Notleistung, 3221kg
0m 520km/h
9000m 660km/h
- Performance Statistic by GLZM August-November
Me109G6/R2 mit DB605AM 1240PS - 0m Kampfleistung, 3320kg
0m 498km/h
6600m 628km/h
Me109G6/R2 mit DB605AM 1800PS - 0m Notleistung, 3320kg
0m 569km/h
5000m 666km/h
- Vergleich Me109G14/ASM - Me109G14/U4 - Me109K4
Me109G14/ASM mit DB605ASM 1250PS - 0m Kampfleistung, 3272kg
0m 490km/h 1210PS
8800m 645km/h 1140PS
Me109G14/ASM mit DB605ASM 1800PS - 0m Notleistung, 3272kg
0m 560km/h 1740PS
7500m 680km/h 1495PS
- Vergleich Me109G14/ASM - Me109G14/U4 - Me109K4
Me109G14/U4 mit DB605AM 1240PS - 0m Kampfleistung, 3318kg
0m 498km/h 1200PS
6600m 628km/h 1240PS
Me109G14/U4 mit DB605AM 1800PS - 0m Notleistung, 3318kg
0m 568km/h 1740PS
5000m 665km/h 1700PS
-
Originally posted by Kweassa
...I realized that the HTC in-game charts also specify the G-14 as having 406mph top speed -
Kweassa, where are the in-game charts you mention?
-
MW30 is the key to that document, i hope!
- It meens 30% Methanol to 70% Wather!
- And the normal MW50 has 50% Methanol to 50% Wather!
-
Kweassa, where are the in-game charts you mention?
When in game go to hangar, select the plane, right click then 2/3rds the way down the pop menu you will see speed chart / climb chart, just click on either...
-
Originally posted by elkaskone
MW30 is the key to that document, i hope!
- It meens 30% Methanol to 70% Wather!
- And the normal MW50 has 50% Methanol to 50% Wather!
Would that make a difference? From my understanding the water/methanol mixture is injected into the eye of the SC where it evaporates cooling the charge. This allows for high boost by reducing detonation. I assume the methanol will help with evaporation but wasn't it mostly there to prevent the water from freezing at altitude?
How would the 20% difference in methanol impact speed?
-
Originally posted by Bruno
Would that make a difference? From my understanding the water/methanol mixture is injected into the eye of the SC where it evaporates cooling the charge. This allows for high boost by reducing detonation. I assume the methanol will help with evaporation but wasn't it mostly there to prevent the water from freezing at altitude?
How would the 20% difference in methanol impact speed?
Good question, i dont know, i can only speculate!
Maybe the useless time before the engine overheats,
from MW30 is shorter than MW50.
Sorry not enough input! :)
-
MW 50 is something of a misnomer, as it is actually a mixture of three fluids; 50% methanol acting primarily to achieve optimum anti-detonant effect, secondarily as an anti-freeze, 49.5% water, and 0.5% Schutzöl 39, an anti-corrosion additive. The similar MW 30 increased the water to 69.5 and decreased methanol to 30%. This increased the cooling performance but made it easier to freeze, intended to be used for lower-altitude missions.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MW50
-
Originally posted by Bruno
How would the 20% difference in methanol impact speed?
I don't think it could make a 20% difference but it might have a very small impact because methanol is higher octane than the fuel so it raises the octane level of the charge.
-
Water injection alone only cools the charge. Methanol will both cool the charge and burn as fuel--but I don't think this fact alone would cause a power increase, since your power ultimately depends on how much oxygen you can stuff into the chambers.
Methanol is higher octane, so a greater percentage of methanol would allow higher MAP. But, if MAP is the same between MW30 and MW50 charts, then I would guess no power difference between the two.
-
Originally posted by phookat
But, if MAP is the same between MW30 and MW50 charts, then I would guess no power difference between the two.
Yep, that's true.
-
lol, there's just no pleasing you guys :)
I'm with you on that one if you can produce the documents. Speed is a statistic much easier to talk about.
Bozon
-
The G-14 handles way better than it did,climbs way better than it did,and has the roll rate of a 190 at 20-K.Really?400 MPH is a pretty good cruising speed and for it too climb straight up like the G-10 of old,now that is what i am talking about.Looking forward to some snapshots involving this newly re-vamped beast.
-
On the AH webpage the G-14 is listed with a
Maximum loaded weight: 7700 lbs.
Which is roughly (3500 kg). This is the weight og a G-14 with gongolas (see my reply above):
652km/h at FTH Bf-109G14/U4 with Gondolawaffen (gondolas) weighing 3501 kg
Does 'maximum loaded weight' mean with gondolas on the AH web page?
If not the the G-14 in clean configuration would weigh at around 3318 kg (7315 lbs).
I think that the G-14 with a max speed of 406 mph and with the listed weight as 7700lbs that this may mean the AH G-14 max speed in clean configuration is actually the performance of a G-14 with gondolas.
I hope we can get an answer but I suspect that the title and with some of the tune in this thread if may get ignored...
-
Hi Bruno,
>I assume the methanol will help with evaporation but wasn't it mostly there to prevent the water from freezing at altitude?
No. Tests conducted by Henry Ricardo in the 1930s showed that a mixture of water and alcohol reduced detonation, and the greatest reduction was achieved at a 50:50 mixture ratio.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harry_Ricardo
Regards,
Henning (HoHun)
-
I think his point is that if water was better, it was unpractical for it would quickly freeze.
-
Originally posted by Kweassa
So our1944 Bf109G-14 with a DB605AM, is supposed to do only 652km/h (405mph) at alt? ...
Man.. that's depressing. That's roughly the same speed as our Bf109G-2.
Yes, max speed is nearly identical to the G-2. However, the G-14 attains max speed at a lower altitude (22k for G-2, 16.5k for G-14) and is considerably faster on the deck. Both climb and acceleration are better than the G-2 as well. In short, the G-14 is somewhat better suited for combat in the MA.
My regards,
Widewing
-
You have to remember that, while the aircraft might not be 150mph faster than the G2, it still has a much more powerful engine, which means better acceleration, climb, and "hang-on-nose" capabilities.
-
I take it then the G14 should be used for Operations that are from 17k downwards and the K4 from 17k upwards ?
So where does the G6 fit in to all this?
-
It's not a matter of overlapping performance. It's a matter of "this came before that, and that came before that". The performance of the engines just changed, and there were others with different performance bands between what we have as well (we have a good representative sample of the 109s, but we don't have them all, there were many other types as well).
So the K4 outperforms the G14 at most (all?) altitudes, especially in speed. The G6 is slower than the G14 by a bit and more sluggish in acceleration and climb. The G2 is lighter, with less engine power, but more nimble (and still almost as fast as the G6), and the F4 is like a lesser-powered G2 (less speed, less climb) but without the gondolas.
-
Bf109G-6 is an earlier war fighter than the Bf109G-14 and later than the Bf109G-2, so it's place is in scenarios or to earn perk points.
-
The G-2 and G-6 have the same engine, DB605A. The G-14 has a DB605 AM, which means water-methanol injection. The K-4 has a DB605DM. The K-4 has a higher FTH then the others due to the mounting of the DB603 super charger to the DB605.
The G-14 only produces about 300ps more then the G-2 and G-6. Its only on WEP where the G-14 out performs the G-2. At mil power the G-2 will out perform both the G-6 and G-14. At WEP the G-2 will out perform the G-6 as well. At mil power the G-14 and G-6 and almost indentical in performance.
The G-6 will get used mostly in events and Combat Tour. It was the most numerous produced Gustavs (12k+). There 5000 or so G-14s produced.
There's no rule as to which 109 to take. Fly the one you like. The K-4 will out perform all the other 109s in AH, at all altitudes.
The only thing you need to know is that on WEP the FTH of the G-14 is 16,400ft. Above that its not much faster then the G-6. OTD the G-14 will hit around 357mph w/WEP. WEP is 10 min on 5 off.
The G-6 entered service in Feb '43
The G-14 June '44
The K-4 Oct '44
-
Originally posted by Krusty
The G2 is lighter, with less engine power, but more nimble (and still almost as fast as the G6)
G-2 is faster than G-6 on all alts.
-
There ya have it :)
I don't think it's much faster, just a few mph, right?
-
At max power / FTH the G-2 is around 405 in AH, The G-6 is around 390 mph.
All the charts for the AH planes can be found on the AH home page...
-
I more curious than anything else RE : 109s, I've watched loads of programs about dogfights between allied and Axis planes and time after time the allied pilots would mention that they were trying to turn with the 109 and then keep up with it in a dive?
I've yet to see a 109 in the AH set outdive anyting, or even have a good turn fight with any Allied aircraft (yet)
-
Well in the Battle of Britain the Spit1s had a bubble float carbuerator (spelling?), that would cut the flow of gas to the engine in low G moves (like a dive). 109Es in the BOB could dive away and their opponents would have their engines cut out, meaning they could not dive very fast. That may be what you heard/read about.
-
It was mostly from accounts of pony pilots, it was usally a hard turning fight then a steep dive followed by a zoom (rope), I'n going to take a k4 up and try this out myself I think.
-
Originally posted by Bruno
The G-2 and G-6 have the same engine, DB605A. The G-14 has a DB605 AM, which means water-methanol injection. The K-4 has a DB605DM. The K-4 has a higher FTH then the others due to the mounting of the DB603 super charger to the DB605.
The G-14 only produces about 300ps more then the G-2 and G-6. Its only on WEP where the G-14 out performs the G-2. At mil power the G-2 will out perform both the G-6 and G-14. At WEP the G-2 will out perform the G-6 as well. At mil power the G-14 and G-6 and almost indentical in performance.
The G-6 will get used mostly in events and Combat Tour. It was the most numerous produced Gustavs (12k+). There 5000 or so G-14s produced.
There's no rule as to which 109 to take. Fly the one you like. The K-4 will out perform all the other 109s in AH, at all altitudes.
The only thing you need to know is that on WEP the FTH of the G-14 is 16,400ft. Above that its not much faster then the G-6. OTD the G-14 will hit around 357mph w/WEP. WEP is 10 min on 5 off.
The G-6 entered service in Feb '43
The G-14 June '44
The K-4 Oct '44
Very interesting, thanks for suppling that information, I would say that the 109 seemed to be always in constant development, what with all the variants and sub variants that seemed to be produced.
What would you say was the top end 109? was it the K4 ? or was there some other that hasn't reached the AH skies yet?
On the subject of the K4, what alt should that be at for max speed? I've heard everywhere from 20k -36k and was just curious.
thanks
Hawco
-
The AH2 K-4 speed chart can be found here:
(http://www.hitechcreations.com/ahhelp/models/charts/109K4spd.gif)
452mph or so at 22k on WEP
430 mph or so at 26k on MIL
All the AH2 aircraft charts can be found here:
Airplanes (http://www.hitechcreations.com/ahhelp/models/index.html)
-
Originally posted by Hawco
I more curious than anything else RE : 109s, I've watched loads of programs about dogfights between allied and Axis planes and time after time the allied pilots would mention that they were trying to turn with the 109 and then keep up with it in a dive?
I've yet to see a 109 in the AH set outdive anyting, or even have a good turn fight with any Allied aircraft (yet)
Take 'pilot accounts' with a grain of salt. You only ever get one side in those accounts. You never know what the other pilot was doing (was he turning as hard as he could, full power in the dive, at what speed did the dive begin etc...) I can post LW accounts where by they claimed they could out turn Spitfires, or out dive this and that. 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.
Don't fall into the trap that some of those who were educated on the History Channel or some poorly researched book. The best way is to figure out how the planes fly and perform in AH (or any game) and work their strengths as modeled rather then banging your head on the wall with 'Mr. Experten said the XXX plane could do XXX and I can't do it in AH so AH is wrong...'
In game you can never create the exact conditions that lead to Mr. SuperAce's out turning that Spitfire in his Ju 52 or the P-51 one pilot that claims he could out run a 262 in level flight. With out knowing the exact context these stories maybe interesting but never capture what actually happened. Some will jump in here with 'how dare you call Mr. SuperAce a liar, he was there...' but so what...
-
Originally posted by Hawco
I take it then the G14 should be used for Operations that are from 17k downwards and the K4 from 17k upwards ?
So where does the G6 fit in to all this?
Welcome in the land of: "No rolling plane set. We want to fly everything from 1940 to 1945, no matter how gameish it is" :rolleyes:
-
Originally posted by Bruno
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.
On the other hand, the "real data" is also not necessarily accurate. Most of it was acquired by test pilots putting an aircraft through its paces; it is therefore only as accurate as the pilot was that day. You only have to peruse these boards to see wild variations in the "real data" for any given plane (although the 109, FW, Hellcat and Corsair seem to be the most prominent examples).
I think it is very unwise to ignore or dismiss anecdotal evidence, simply because it conflicts with test pilot data.
- oldman
-
Anecdotal evidence never proved anything.
With the right setup you can make a point with anecdotal evidence to say that pigs fly. Yet the DATA will show that pigs can not POSSIBLY fly. The pig had to be either boosted from the ground, or dropped from something that does fly.
The problem is that anecdotal evidence never gives the whole story.
Its single sided, only see's its small part of the world. And the results of that are tied to memory, which we all know can be selective, faulty and full of mistakes.
So while it may have interest to us as pilots. To HTC its virtually worthless.
What they need is DATA, provable, repeatable Data. Facts & figures that do not reply on anyone's "memory" of events. Or subjective "feel" of a plane.
-
Originally posted by Oldman731
On the other hand, the "real data" is also not necessarily accurate. Most of it was acquired by test pilots putting an aircraft through its paces; it is therefore only as accurate as the pilot was that day. You only have to peruse these boards to see wild variations in the "real data" for any given plane (although the 109, FW, Hellcat and Corsair seem to be the most prominent examples).
I think it is very unwise to ignore or dismiss anecdotal evidence, simply because it conflicts with test pilot data.
- oldman
Hi,
all aspects can be wrong or missleading. Test datas, pilot experiences, same like very nice looking calculations are not that much worth, if we dont know the background datas and of course it can all be very helpfull, if we know the exact circumstances where the tests, calculations and experiences was made in.
Even if we would have some real WWII fighters to test them, there always would be differents between planes of the same plane type, we even would get different results caused by the temperature and pilot.
In real life there is no 109G6 with exact this or that Vmax or climbspeed, like we have it in our games(actually even in game the pilot make a big different while testing the Vmax and specialy climb/turn ratio).
The best we can try to do is to minimize the 'greyzone of realism'.
We can say a Me109G14 had a Vmax of 400-420mph, maybe, after many more researches, we can minimize the greyzone to 405-415mph or what ever.
Regarding other values, like turn radius, climb rate, acceleration etc, the greyzone of realism will stay pretty wide.
Actually i count this as luck for the FM/DM makers, cause they can use this greyzone to adjust the performence relation to provide a good gameplay, without to get unrealistic.
As long as the performences stay inside the 'greyzone of realism' and provide a good even gameplay, we should be happy.
Imho AH is not bad regarding this, though not perfect!
btw. i dont think that the basic performences are that important at all.
A FM/Dm maker can create a plane that is faster than all others, climb better, accelerate better, but bleed energy like mad while a highspeed turn, so the other planes only need to turn a bit to gain all advantages.
Or a plane simply get a unrealistic high or low drag above Vmax.
Or one plane get a very ugly stallbehaviour, as result although its possible to turn more tight with this plane, only aces can do this under presure of a combat. Or make a very good performing plane to a unstable gunplattform, then the performence isnt that much worth(and the other way around).
Greetings, Knegel
-
I've yet to see a 109 in the AH set outdive anyting, or even have a good turn fight with any Allied aircraft (yet)
Really?I turned with you yesterday , you was in a P-51-B, i was in a 110-C.
You are a timid fighter pilot,one day you will know the true power of the Mustang at 20-K, and you should have got me.The funny thing is me and the squaddie(both in 110C's)did everything toget you to play and it wasn't until we flew away from you that you came too engage us.Point is,if you are too timid to fight 2 - 110's then what will you do against the 109?
Krusty,i have a request for a skin.One that no one else has made that i have seen yet.I respectfully request that you or someone make the
"Black Tulip" skin.I prefer Krusty as he has done some of the best skinning work yet.
-
Sorry, Raven beat me to it. He did Hartmann's (Was it Hartmann??) G-14 with winter camo and black tulip. It's in the skins forum, with screenshots! It's just finished, so it should be on the top 10 posts.
-
Why not do a Black Tulip skin for all the 109's?
-
Because not all of them had it. Because the skins would be nearly identical, and would be boring to do. Because Hartmann's skins are already pretty uninteresting as-is, with or without the tulip. Without it, he just has another basic camo 109. With it he has a basic camo 109 with black triangles around the nose. I can see having 1, but 1 for every 109? Why bother?
-
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 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.
-
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.
-
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!)
-
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.
(http://img.villagephotos.com/p/2004-8/809754/hrt6.jpg)
My regards,
Widewing
-
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!
-
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 (http://www.jg52.de/seitede.htm)
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.
-
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
-
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
-
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)
-
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.....
-
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..! :rolleyes:
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...
-
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
-
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.
-
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)
-
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)
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
What language was that..?
Hartmann's career is well documented, there are several images of his personal aircraft. If you have special information ( *caugh* :rolleyes: ) then please provide it, I am sure others will be interested...
-
Originally posted by Bruno
Nonsense...
Well. I've said my piece. Not expecting to change a lot of minds around here.
- oldman
-
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.
-
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.
-
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?
(http://www.albentley-drawings.com/images/EZ42.jpg)
The 16B
(http://www.albentley-drawings.com/images/Revi16B.jpg)
-
thirty millimetre on top ... two of them
I want it! ;)
-
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.:eek:
-
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]
-
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..! :rolleyes:
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
-
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.
-
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.
-
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)
-
Was it "Zirty" or Zirteen"....:D
-
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.
he is over 75 years old,and prolly comes from the old school way of thinking.As far as who i would believe,The nerds of today who think they know everything?, or the 70 + year old German fighter pilot and flight instructor?
That is a no Brainer!
-
Hi Autopilot,
>As far as who i would believe,The nerds of today who think they know everything?, or the 70 + year old German fighter pilot and flight instructor?
>That is a no Brainer!
Well, the idea that simply writing down what the "people who were there" told you resulted in accurate history was recognized as flawed by historians back in the hirst half of the 19th century.
You might just as well have told me that the steam engine has no chance to ever replace the horse for drawing wagons.
Nice opinion, just a bit outdated.
Regards,
Henning (HoHun)
-
Originally posted by AutoPilot
he is over 75 years old,and prolly comes from the old school way of thinking.As far as who i would believe,The nerds of today who think they know everything?, or the 70 + year old German fighter pilot and flight instructor?
That is a no Brainer!
I met Mr. Stigler on 2 occasions and have corresponded with him several times over the years. He will be the first to admit his memory of certain events is clouded. I haven't heard from him since he was admitted into the hospital in Canada a few years ago.
Calling folks 'nerds' is comical coming from someone who can not even put together a coherent sentence.
I asked if you could share your 'conversation with Hartmann'? When and where did this conversation take place?
-
Originally posted by AutoPilot
Really?I turned with you yesterday , you was in a P-51-B, i was in a 110-C.
You are a timid fighter pilot,one day you will know the true power of the Mustang at 20-K, and you should have got me.The funny thing is me and the squaddie(both in 110C's)did everything toget you to play and it wasn't until we flew away from you that you came too engage us.Point is,if you are too timid to fight 2 - 110's then what will you do against the 109?
Krusty,i have a request for a skin.One that no one else has made that i have seen yet.I respectfully request that you or someone make the
"Black Tulip" skin.I prefer Krusty as he has done some of the best skinning work yet.
I hate to rain on your parade here, but feel I must respond to this outrageous claim.
I fly mostly in the AvA and pop into the ma for some practice from time to time.
My squad mate was on and he jumped over to bish so we could have a pony V Ki fight at 20k down, you guys happened to turn up as I was waiting/looking for him, maybe you remember the KI that was inb to my position ? He was nose on for me so I turned towards him, maybe that's why you assume that I was somehow looking for you guys?
Anyway his username is Jaekart and he too is part of the 78thFG and he will vouch that my account is indeed true.
Feel free to pop into the AvA sometime and ask any of the Axis boys if they think I'm timid or do I know how to fly a pony.
Anyway, hope that clears things up.
Hawco
-
Well my squaddie will also back me up on the fact there was no Ki and you would not engage until we were flying away from you, after that ploy worked you came down and as you went for the HO on me the ack got you.
Was one of the best memories from this game in a long time.I believe we have film of the encounter as well.
-
Sounds like good smart tactics Hawco.:aok Fly away til the enemy turns for home then they are on the defensive and you the offensive. Gives one an edge. :aok
-
Ehh, Bruno. Regarding the value of anecdotes, they first become valuable if you read a lot of them, read them with an open mind, and DON't cherrypick.
Here's your stuff:
"Here's a quick anecdote or two:
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
... 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..!
Take this into scrutiny, - Kaiser's quote.
Was the BoB 109 faster than it's counterpart? Yes, and more markedly at high altitude.
Did it climb better? Mostly, untill older 109's ran into 100 octaned Spits with CS propeller and then the difference was marginal.
He mentions that the 109 was somewhat less maneuverable, but yet HE didn't get outturned. That suggests that the difference was not great, and it could boil down to the pilot and situation.
Then on to Leyklauf.
He claims the 109E turned better flat out with the slats out.
He may be right in a sense (the first circle), but generally he is not in allignement to the most of the others. Well Marseille used that trick with great effectiveness, but it means going really really slow, so better have cover. And your slats have to be in good order...
How does this match to AH? Rather well I'd say!
-
Was the BoB 109 faster than it's counterpart? Yes, and more markedly at high altitude.
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.
He claims the 109E turned better flat out with the slats out.
He may be right in a sense (the first circle), but generally he is not in allignement to the most of the others. Well Marseille used that trick with great effectiveness, but it means going really really slow, so better have cover. And your slats have to be in good order...
That's not what he was saying at all. The whole anecdote reads:
Me 109 E:
"The Bf 109s also had leading edge slats. When the 109 was flown, advertently or inadvertently, too slow, the slats shot forward out of the wing, sometimes with a loud bang which could be heard above the noise of the engine. Many times the slats coming out frightenened young pilots when they flew the Bf 109 for the first time in combat. One often flew near the stalling speed in combat, not only when flying straight and level but especially when turning and climbing. Sometimes the slats would suddenly fly out with a bang as if one had been hit, especially when one had throttled back to bank steeply. Indeed many fresh young pilots thought they were pulling very tight turns even when the slats were still closed against the wing. 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.
One had to enter the turn correctly, then open up the engine. It was a matter of feel. When one noticed the speed becoming critical - the aircraft vibrated - one had to ease up a bit, then pull back again, so that in plan the best turn would have looked like an egg or a horizontal ellipse rather than a circle. In this way one could out-turn the Spitfire - and I shot down six of them doing it. This advantage to the Bf 109 soon changed when improved Spitfires were delivered."
He is only talking about out turning a Spitfire in under narrow circumstances. I deliberately only quoted a portion of the above because I knew some one would come in here and make up their own rationalization as to why those anecdotes could be correct. That is the problem with anecdotes, they are subjective and some folks, like you did in the above post, will go out of their way to explain 'how they could be right' despite how ambiguous or incomplete the anecdote is.
I don't know where you got your information about Marseille but he didn't get into 'slow turning fights'.
I bet I could post a made up anecdote and you would come here and tell me how it could be true, wouldn't you..? :p
How does this match to AH? Rather well I'd say!
You don't fly 109s, and probrably never had a proper 109E / Spit Ia fight in AH. So what are you talking about?
Tell me how anything you wrote 'matches up well with the AH Spit 1a / 109E-4'?
(http://www.hitechcreations.com/ahhelp/models/charts/spit1spd.gif)
(http://www.hitechcreations.com/ahhelp/models/charts/109e4spd.gif)
-
Originally posted by AutoPilot
Well my squaddie will also back me up on the fact there was no Ki and you would not engage until we were flying away from you, after that ploy worked you came down and as you went for the HO on me the ack got you.
Was one of the best memories from this game in a long time.I believe we have film of the encounter as well.
1. You're wrong, or you'd have posted the film right away.
2. If that is one of your best memories of Aces High, you have set your bar very low.
-
You're wrong, or you'd have posted the film right away.
No way to post film hmmmm maybe?
I have plenty of memorys and where my bar is set is really none of your bidness, why are you worried so badly about where i set my bar?
-
Bruno, they promoted the Spit I in AH II recently right?
In AH I it was definately slower.
Anyway, this:
"You don't fly 109s, and probrably never had a proper 109E / Spit Ia fight in AH. So what are you talking about?"
Big brother, I fly 109's almost every day.
Not Emils, and not the K's though, sort of hooked on the G-14 right now.
And I had many a fight Spit I vs 109E as well as Hurry vs 109E......
109E not my favourite 109.
Oh, there is more than just Angus and just the MA. Waste your time at will scrutinizing my logs. Well Angus in the MA should reveal a slice of the cake this month....
-
109E not my favourite 109
That particular plane is the key to flying all the 109's.I too fly nothing but 109's and prefer the 109-G-2 over all of them.
-
I had a hard choice between the G-2 and the F before the 14 came around.
Although the 109E has a potent firepower, I rather preferred the F.
Oh, an anecdote:
"The 109F was VERY maneuverable. When the 109G came around it was too heavy, - not as maneuverable"
Gunther Rall
-
before the 14 came around.
You mean before they fixed it?
-
Originally posted by Angus
Bruno, they promoted the Spit I in AH II recently right?
In AH I it was definately slower.
Was a bug fix -
The boost gauge showed the higher boost with 100 grade fuel, but the FM was based on 85 grade.
So on the remodel Pyro fixed the FM to correctly mimic the 100 grade performance.
Was various threads on Spit I's using 100 grade from May 1940 onwards.
-
Originally posted by Angus
Bruno, they promoted the Spit I in AH II recently right?
In AH I it was definately slower.
Anyway, this:
"You don't fly 109s, and probrably never had a proper 109E / Spit Ia fight in AH. So what are you talking about?"
Big brother, I fly 109's almost every day.
Not Emils, and not the K's though, sort of hooked on the G-14 right now.
And I had many a fight Spit I vs 109E as well as Hurry vs 109E......
109E not my favourite 109.
Oh, there is more than just Angus and just the MA. Waste your time at will scrutinizing my logs. Well Angus in the MA should reveal a slice of the cake this month....
blah, blah, blah...
You say a lot of things like 'I fly 109s' etc... You even went on to extol the merits of the pre-patch G-14 when it was clearly wrong...
In your last post you were comparing the AH 109 / Spit Ia match up to the real life match up:
Take this into scrutiny, - Kaiser's quote.
Was the BoB 109 faster than it's counterpart? Yes, and more markedly at high altitude.
Did it climb better? Mostly, untill older 109's ran into 100 octaned Spits with CS propeller and then the difference was marginal.
He mentions that the 109 was somewhat less maneuverable, but yet HE didn't get outturned. That suggests that the difference was not great, and it could boil down to the pilot and situation.
Then on to Leyklauf.
He claims the 109E turned better flat out with the slats out.
He may be right in a sense (the first circle), but generally he is not in allignement to the most of the others. Well Marseille used that trick with great effectiveness, but it means going really really slow, so better have cover. And your slats have to be in good order...
How does this match to AH? Rather well I'd say!
Basically you were full of dung on all accounts. As Kev said the Spit Ia was debated for a long time on this forum, some topics you yourself posted in. The Spit Ia was fixed with the new Spit / 109 back in November '05 (or was it Oct.?). That's at least 5 months ago. Even the 85 Octane Spit Ia, that was modeled in AH, was still faster at all altitudes up to 22k or so. Climb shifted a bit between the 2 but the overall advantage remained with the Spitfire. Even with a slow speed, slats out, flat turn the 109E could not out turn a Spitfire. So even then your:
How does this match to AH? Rather well I'd say!
Doesn't make sense. My opinion about you not flying 109s isn't so much on your 'logs' but in how you desrcibe their characteristics in AH. It would be like me telling folks how to fly a Spit XVI... I'ts just not credible.
Anyway this thread is way o/t...
If anyone gets an answer to the take-off weight for the AH G-14 please let me know. I have the suspicion that it's a bit heavy. With a speed of 406 mph, and possibly over weight, the AH G-14 in clean configuration seems to match up well against a real life G-14 with gondolas. I could be wrong but that's what I am sticking to until told other wise...
-
Angus, didn't you know that no one knows as much as him?
Why even bother with it?
That's how it works, you respect their opinion but they cannot respect yours.
-
Originally posted by AutoPilot
That particular plane is the key to flying all the 109's.I too fly nothing but 109's and prefer the 109-G-2 over all of them.
Great !
It's always good to see guys stick with certain aircraft, it only makes people better flying overall if you ask me, hopefully see you in the AvA sometime.....
-
Originally posted by AutoPilot
No way to post film hmmmm maybe?
I have plenty of memorys and where my bar is set is really none of your bidness, why are you worried so badly about where i set my bar?
Yeah, the internet is really tough. It's so difficult to find a free filehost. But you did figure out how to make blue text, that's a true feat! :aok
I'm as worried about where you set your bar as you are about the way hawco flys.
-
It's always good to see guys stick with certain aircraft, it only makes people better flying overall if you ask me, hopefully see you in the AvA sometime.....
I fly all the planes in this game, i just prefer the German aircraft first.I have been in the AvA when you are in there, but all the people who come in are flying Axis so i switched out the squad name and went Allies for this set-up.
If i see you in there Hawco i'll switch sides so we can have some good clean fights.:aok
-
Originally posted by AutoPilot
Angus, didn't you know that no one knows as much as him?
Why even bother with it?
That's how it works, you respect their opinion but they cannot respect yours.
I don't respect you at all, opinion or other wise. I think you lied more then once in this thread. How about those details on your 'conversation with Hartmann'?
Plank saw through you too, post your film...
The only thing you are good at is whining, which what you have done ever since you started posting on this forum. So yeah, why bother..?
-
Don't like too hear the truth do we?
Yes i met Mr.Hartmann, was only 13 at the time and was an experience i will never forget and not just because he signed a painting, because of his experience's and his willing to share that.
I do not know anyone who hosts films wouldn't know where to start.
You and plank are self proclaimed experts cuz ya found some stuff on the internet and are renowned experts in the aviation department (minus your books being published).If you do not like me i do not care.if you do not believe me i do not care.So yea why bother..................
-
Yes i met Mr.Hartmann, was only 13 at the time and was an experience i will never forget and not just because he signed a painting, because of his experience's and his willing to share that.
Yet you clearly recall Hartmann decribing the paint schemes of his various aircraft..?
I have had a conversation with Mr.Hartmann and he told me different than what Bruno said.
A google-eyed 13 year old kid is far different then what you portrayed in the quote above. Or are you just compounding one 'fib' with another?
If you don't mind me asking, how old are you?
-
Originally posted by Bruno
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.
Hi,
i did read what you wrote, i dont disagree to what you wrote in general, only to the point where you write that "Anecdotal evidence is completely worthless when it comes to accurately modeling aircraft for a game...".
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.
And who decide which of the calculations are 100%(or 50%, 70%) correct?
Please, show me the turn times of a combatworthy Me109E4, for now i dont found any! A 109E turntest where the pilot turn with slats open also would be nice.
btw, why do you think the 109E4 was faster above 22k alt? The Spit1a had the higher max alt and i dont found a hint that the DB601A or Aa had a power peak at 22k. If the 109E was slower below 20k, there is no logic in estimating it as the faster plane above 22k, if we look to the max alt.
Actually i doubt that the Spit1a was faster in low alt, but in around 17000ft. Of course if you compare the Spit1a 100octan Wep with the DB601A 5min rating, maybe, but also the 109E had a TO power to be used as emergency(at least some datas, lately displayed, show a pretty fast 109E with this powersetting). With 5min power for both planes the Spit dont seems to be faster below 15000ft(the 109E had more power there, was smaler and more light, although the tail and spinner probably was a handycap regarding the drag).
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.
btw. your comment regarding HoHun maybe show that you go the same way like he? Dont look sideward, keep on believing only in datas(which obvious dont be exact or objective) as only credible facts is more a religion than science.
Originally posted by 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.
Hi,
the problem is: The WWII Numbers cant get tracked down in most cases!!
Physics dont lie, yes, but what do you wanna calculate if you have many different datas to the same value, which all result in absolut different performences, while you dont have enough tests to determine a middle value?
Today we have supercomputers and much knowledge and specialy experiences regarding flightphysics, but still windtunnels and real flighttests are needed to get the wanted knowledge. To believe to beeing able to calculate the 109E turn rate in relation to the Spit1a´s turnrate seems to be a bit strange, same like believing in one existing turntest of this planes. If we base the calculations on the Clmax resulting out of the stallspeed, both planes had a pretty similar liftload, but then again almost every Spit1a test i saw show a different stall speed(up to 10mph difference), some tests refer to a faster stallspeed than the 109E got in the british tests, some to a same fast, some to a bit slower stall speed.
I actually only know one turn test between the 109E and Spit1a, but is a turn of a 109E with a cocked engine and possible closed slats something worth?
I dont know any perfect documented WWII plane, all test results of different tests show big discrepancys or miss documentation here or there, which would allow to create absolut different performences in a Simulation without to leave the range of possibilitys(greyzone of realism).
Maybe noone took notice, but i also dont would like to base a FM/Dm only on anecdotals, but they are same much worth like the testdatas.
I prefer to use what seems to be more credible, sometimes its the test, sometimes its the anecdote, most both together show the best picture.
At the end our decision make the datas subjective!
Since 5 years i create FM/DM´s, i know there have to be a line, but the real plane performences are often not that different, smal differents often result in a 'super plane' or a sitting duck, what often cant be realistic at all, at least it dont seems to be credible and most isnt wanted in a game.
With very smal changings we can change the whole picture. For example with super combat flaps, or changing the inertia or one of the other E-bleed related values, or the stall behaviour, or make one plane a bit more slow or fast can result in extreme different results while gaming, without to leave the range of tested results. Our planeperformences can fit very good to the known testdatas, but still we dont have any exact datas regarding the most important E-bleed, neighter to the dive acceleration at different speeds, neighter to the upzoom behaviour and i hope you dont expect from a gameengine to be able to calculate this datas out of simplyfied wingare, weight and drag datas.
At the end we need to believe this or that value, this or that anecdote, or we need to buy some Spitfires, some 109´s and make testflights under same conditions like we do it in game, or we need a very good windchannel. But who realy wanna know that the 190D9, or Spit14 or La7 or P51D was a super mega über plane?? Iam happy with our greyzone of realism, otherwise we maybe would get absolut realistic FM/DM´s, but a horrible gameplay. ;)
Greetings, Knegel
-
Nice Knegel, - This "greyzone of realism" pretty well is what it's all about. The ballpark. And IMHO AHII has this rather well done with constant improvements being made.
Their 109E seems a bit too slow compared to the SpitI, but I have nothing to support that with except anecdotes. I do not recall any of our LW crowd posting a decent original chart or data of either climb or speed. I have somewhere a chart of turn, and then the typical numbers 18 secs to 23, but not enough of the aircraft types involved.
An combat story here:
"Mölders meets Malan. Malan fires at Mölders mate, Mölders gets on to Malan's tail, Malan breaks and a turnfight evolves. Malan outturns Mölders and pumps his aircraft full of .303's, Mölders runs and makes it away, and crashlands in France"
What does this little tale tell you?
Another one:
"Al Deere gives chase after a running 109. After a long chase, across the whole channel he has finally closed the gap"
(I can't remember if he shot or returned to base)
What does that tell you?
What I read out is that Speedwise there was little to choose between, but the 109 was known to be faster in a dive so there is also a factor we do not know.
AHII is in the ballpark allright.
Wonder where they have the 109F and 109E data from though.
I only have 1 graph of the 109F and it shows it with some 670 kph. I'd rather rely on anecdotes there than instantly belive that the 109F was an actual 415 mph sircraft.
-
Originally posted by Angus
Wonder where they have the 109F and 109E data from though.
I only have 1 graph of the 109F and it shows it with some 670 kph. I'd rather rely on anecdotes there than instantly belive that the 109F was an actual 415 mph sircraft.
Angus, a site with lots of data on the 109F,
http://www.beim-zeugmeister.de/zeugmeister/index.php?id=7&L=1
-
Yet you clearly recall Hartmann decribing the paint schemes of his various aircraft..?
Duh! Have you ever heard of a Video Recorder?
Or is that beyond your scope of thinking Bruno since you are the self proclaimed Joe Friday and all.You just made the ignore list.
-
Originally posted by AutoPilot
You and plank are self proclaimed experts cuz ya found some stuff on the internet and are renowned experts in the aviation department (minus your books being published).
Don't remember where in my post I claimed to be an expert on anything. You shouldn't have to be an expert to upload something to the interweb super-freeway.
But I'll be nice, you can send me the film and I'll be glad to host it on my squad's website. You can send it to my spam account:
hapslappy[at]gmail.com
-
Oh, thank you a lot Milo. Will ponder over it tonight.
I have been examining the lift of the Spitfire I vs 109E quite a bit, - since they have very close weights and power. Now perhaps I can move on to the Spit V and 109F ;)
BTW, a CS 100 oct Spit I compared to the only 109E data I have, provides roughly 10% more lift in the climb. Calculated to Newtons. The power and weight affect the difference very little.
However that hangs in closely with the turning ability.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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)
-
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.
-
Deleted for personal attack.
-
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
-
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.:rofl
Priceless
-
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)
-
Like i said, settle it in the sky's.
-
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...
-
Originally posted by Bruno
I think HT has settled it...
Yup, and I believe way, way back I basically said the same thing.
-
Some of you need more antidote :D
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?
-
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
-
Milo -
Do you have those scans of the 262 gunsite at a higher resolution?
-
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).