No worries Aircat.
I'm not arguing against your point, just how it's made. I need something more quantitative than who shot down who in what. And asking stuff like why we even bother doing a certain aircraft doesn't come across as constructive.
As for using combat situations to make a real analysis, it can't be done. The only thing a combat situation can do is to warrant further investigation in a controlled test. There's just too many unknown variables otherwise. This is something that anybody can do.
Back in my AW days, I had a certain tactic that I loved to use that would often get people complaining about how screwed up the flight models were or that I was cheating. What I would do is take a F6F(lacking in top end speed but a good dogfighter with a good dive) and position myself at alt around a furball that is being bnz'd by P-51s, FWs, etc. I would position myself far enough away from the furball so that I usually didn't register on anyone's threat-meter. What I would do is watch for the BnZer's try to make easy pickins out of a low-alt stall-fighting furball. I would try to set myself up perpendicular to their run and as they commenced it, I would start a high speed dive to the point where I expected them to come out. They usually would do a quick check and not see anything threatening and then start their run. Once started, their attention shifted to their intended target and my actions went unnoticed. As they made their pass through the furball they would try to extend a bit and then notice that a statistically slower plane is accelerating out of the furball and on to their bellybutton to shoot them down. I've seen people go on tirades about that because they assumed that I came from out of a stall-fighting furball to chase them down.
I used a lot of other tactics as well that were predatory on people making incorrect assessments of situations. Even though everybody knows better, you'd be surprised at how often people equate co-alt with co-E in practice.
Anyway, what this gets at is that I've seen tons of complaints both as a player and as a producer that don't mean anything by themself. Turning up the volume on these types of complaints has the reverse effect, it often drowns out those things that may be valid. If you see something that you think is incorrect, the best way to report it is with documented facts. For example, you could say that a 109 chased down your P-51 at 27K. That by itself doesn't mean a whole lot to me. But if you said that you tested a 109 and a P-51 at a given loadout and throttle setting at that altitude and found something wrong, that would mean a lot.
You ask if it's possible the loadouts are too heavy. It's not just possible that some things are wrong at this stage, it's a given. Once everything gets settled out, we'll publish our figures and then you can criticize my interpretations and how they don't match your data.
I'll give my speech about aircraft data one day. My attitude towards it has changed greatly in the last four years. I can even "prove" how a Zero is faster than a Bf 109G. Not that it is or that it will be in AH, but just to prove a point.
------------------
Doug "Pyro" Balmos
HiTech Creations
