comparing

[BnZs]

Yes Scholz, that is why the evaluation of the 109 is questionable, especially as the physics of the matter would lead one to a different conclusion. The Allies had no such hurdles in testing P51 and P47 relative performance, and in this case the physics agree with their conclusions.

That turning circle diagram BnZs posted is from a post-war article written by T.S. Wade, an RAF officer. Not from any allied test report. In any case, allied tests of German aircraft were never done under optimal conditions; the aircraft were in most cases repaired after ditching and battle damage and run on Allied non-synthetic fuels that often meant the engines ran rough. The pilots were also careful not to push the aircraft too hard, especially with the 109 which had an unfounded reputation with the RAF for losing its wings in hard turns. Allied test pilots would normally not pull harder than to the point where the slats deploy.

A German test pilot's perspective:

"Unexperienced pilots hesitated to turn tight, because the plane shook violently when the slats deployed. I realised, though, that because of the slats the plane's stalling characteristics were much better than in comparable Allied planes that I got to fly. Even though you may doubt it, I knew it [Bf109] could manouver better in turnfight than LaGG, Yak or even Spitfire."
- Walter Wolfrum, German fighter ace. 137 victories.


Fly around in AH and don't pull harder than up to the point where the slats deploy, then yeah... The Pony will out turn you.

[GScholz]

You have posted no relevant data on the relative performance of the P-51 and P-47. HTC won't do anything based on hearsay.

[BnZs]

You have posted no relevant data on the relative performance of the P-51 and P-47. HTC won't do anything based on hearsay.

Relative turn performance as tested by pilots is not "hearsay". Wing-loading is not "hearsay". Respective stall speeds as an indicator of maximum lift in relation to weight is not "hearsay". That said, I don`t expect HTC to do anything. Despite oddities like the poor performance of the Pony or the low speed performance of the Corsair, AHII remains a fun game in which plane performance is mostly pretty close and many real life ACM tactics work well. If the P51D performed better in turns, the LW main might necome the mostly P51D arena. That would be bad for the game. OTOH, perking the P51D. THE airplane noobs in this culture WILL want to fly, might be very bad for subscriptions. While I am sure it is not deliberate, the current P51D modeling fortuitously avoids this problem. I`d rather fly this excellent sim with a porked P51D then fly in a porked arena with perfect modeling or in an arena with fewer subscribers.     

[GScholz]

You don't think HTC knows the relative wing loading of these aircraft? Everything you've posted that contradicts the AH performance of the P-51 is hearsay. Pilot anecdotes that are no more definitive than "I out turned him". Thinly veiled accusations won't get you anywhere either.

[BnZs]

You don't think HTC knows the relative wing loading of these aircraft? Everything you've posted that contradicts the AH performance of the P-51 is hearsay. Pilot anecdotes that are no more definitive than "I out turned him". Thinly veiled accusations won't get you anywhere either.


(Image removed from quote.)

Of course they know it. They knew it in AH version 1 as well, yet the relative performance in that version was different. So which was the perfect and unquestionable reality? Or perhaps you think that the performance of real airplanes in the past changes when HTC changes the flight model. Also, if you fail to comprehend the difference between combat reports on encounters with enemy aircraft and reports on relative performance regarding aircraft your own side developed and tested, you are an idiot. Since you are plainly not an idiot, you must be deliberately being obtuse about the difference for some reason. Finally, I am not making an accusation. It is a fact that P51D use verges on being perk-worthy already and additional performance could put it right over the top. Admittedly the idea that perking the P51D would turn off new players is speculative, but I think it plausible.     

[Wiley]

They knew it in AH version 1 as well, yet the relative performance in that version was different. So which was the perfect and unquestionable reality? Or perhaps you think that the performance of real airplanes in the past changes when HTC changes the flight model.

...Possibly they found better information/something they previously used was discredited?

Wiley.

[GScholz]

Nothing is "unquestionable". However, you're the one claiming something is wrong, thus the burden of proof lies squarely on you. To my knowledge the biggest difference between AH1 and AH2 was the fidelity of the flight model. More available CPU power allowed more data points to be calculated simultaneously resulting in a more accurate "higher resolution" simulation.

A pilot anecdote, Allied vs Allied or otherwise, is not something HTC can punch into a simulator and calculate a result from. They need numbers.


Oh and if you do find actual usable information, be sure to post about it on other sites as well; I have played just about every WWII simulator since Chuck Yeager's Air Combat more than 20 years ago, and I cannot recall one game where a 109 doesn't out turn a Pony slow and low.

[muzik]

You should read some of the bordering-on-insane stuff Yeager and his fellows got up to when it came to maneuvering their aircraft in every possible way.

funny you should mention him. I thought that might have been where you got your false conclusions.

Bob Johnson and his fellows got up to the same sort of thing, per "Thunderbolt". Hoover. Etc. These men knew anything they flew cold.

both of these guys were EXTRAORDINARY pilots by EVERY account. If I remember correctly, Hoover had over 1000 hours in multiple types before he even went to combat, which was extremely rare.

And it doesn't a Yeager or a Hoover at the stick to notice

if it doesn't take a Yeager or Hoover to notice then why are you using two exceptional pilots as an example of what the AVERAGE pilot knew or didn't know?

to notice that say, a P-47D couldn't generate quite as much G in a 200 mph turn as a P-51B.

You are making a fatally flawed apples to oranges comparison

who's making apples to oranges comparisons? You're trying to say that because a few American pilots understood the differences in American aircraft variants, that all of them did and that pilots on both sides understood the handling characteristics of MULTIPLE ENEMY FIGHTER VARIANTS.

And you are using test pilots as an example of what typical pilots  knew when even test pilots had limited access to enemy hardware until after the war. Yes I know we tested captured enemy aircraft, I'm not going to get into a debate with you about how many. I've been researching this stuff for several years now.

your example of Spits fighting Zeros. In that case, they were acting from a position of zero experience, or rather, a position lacking in Zero experience. They had neither flown nor even fought against Zeros, they had no idea what they were up against.

They were experienced combat pilots from Africa with several aces, they had first-hand knowledge from Joe Foss who had just spent months engaging zeros. And if that was not enough, it was well known from 3 years of combat in the Chinese theater that Japanese planes were extremely maneuverable. There was no excuse. It just goes to prove how stubborn some people can be when presented with FACTS.

Obviously, times havent changed much.  

we are talking about two airplanes on the Allied side that were extensively tested by the Allies.  

 

Here's The heart of your misconception. What exactly do you think extensively means in this case? Thousands of hours of flight time? Guess again. I would love for you to show me where I can find data that supports that. I've been looking for it for some time now.

Ack-Ack  posted a single report comparing the FW to the P47. I see no mention of mock combat, they drag raced and chased each other around in circles.  I'm not saying that's not good enough, I'm just saying that's not extensive. They didn't even identify the exact variant of FW.

That report was intended to prepare every Allied P 47 pilot for combat against the FW.  Their lives depended on that information and they put a whopping four hours of testing into it and they didn't specifically identify the FW variant. Is that what you call extensive?

 You don't even see  a disclaimer like...

"WARNING - This comparison is just one variant of the FW-190. Performance can change considerably from one version to another..."

 You have misguided beliefs about how much testing was done. When the US got its hands on an enemy aircraft, more hours were spent taking them apart, putting them back together and analyzing  the technology than was spent test flying.

After we got done testing an aircraft it might get passed around to be flown by a few trusted pilots. But after incidents like the time someone wrecked Koga's zero, it seems that kind of thing slowed.


So back to Yeager again, I'm guessing you read about how he used to "bounce" a/c coming in and out of Wright Field and kicking everyones ass. And this makes you think everyone was out there having a good ol time in mock fights <cough> in the name of training and flight testing.

 The US didn't have a policy of allowing a bunch of kids to "play dogfighting" with valuable aircraft anytime they felt like it.

1- Those antics of Yeagers were either late or right after the war and times weren't as tight.

2- He was a decorated ace and a Captain by that time and I'm certain given a little leeway.

That's not to say that some didn't break the rules, but in the first half of the war, anyone caught breaking this rule probably wouldn't fly again. It didn't happen as often as you think.
 
The point of all of this? You seem to think most of these guys had first hand knowledge of whether a D11 could out turn a 51B. It wasn't, it was 99% hearsay.

They did not have to guess about relative performance.

You're right, they didn't have to guess. They had hearsay and... "I flew both and I can tell the pony turns better because my nuts hurt more when I flew the pony in hard turns."

Of course all of them who flew both, and swear that the Pony turns better than a Jug, MUST have flown every single model of the Jug.  

[FLOOB]

See rule #4

[muzik]

There was a lot of testing of the capabilities of Allied fighters against Axis fighters and Allied against Allied.

Yea, and your post demonstrates how much "a lot" is...  4 hours to produce a "definitive report."

The pilot's training didn't end when his stateside training did, it continued throughout their combat tour.

I have no doubt, but I have read tons on the subject and I can't recall any accounts of any significant training after being deployed. I do recall many accounts of booze and women when not flying.

Obviously the military would work to remedy any training deficiencies if they could, but that doesnt mean these guys were out there using valuable fuel and risking valuable aircraft in their spare time. So, I am certain you are right and they had hours upon hours of lectures by all sorts of successful pilots, just like what Foss did for the Spit squadrons.

The vast majority of pilots were basing their opinions on hearsay and the reports you pointed out. As you should already have seen, they overlook potentially critical details, like the fact that one FW variant may perform differently than another.

That report made a blanket statement about the FW. It may not have been a big deal in the war or someone may have died because of it.

That's not the issue, the issue now is that some guys cant get over that their heroes, who got incomplete information from blanket statement reporting, may have had false impressions about their fave-oh-right air-oh-planes.

The training took place in the form of continued flight training (could involve such things as navigation, formation flying, mock combat, etc.) and classes/briefings.  

I have never heard of an operational squadron on deployment being taught to fly. Please provide a reference.

If navigation was a problem with any pilot, he may have been ordered class time, but I have never heard of it. Some may have even done it voluntarily. What I have heard, is that good pilots were assigned lead positions and lacking pilots were made wingmen.

In an operational squadron, formation flying was done on missions. There was no additional "training" flights.

And again, once deployed, a pilot was done with mock combat. He was not guaranteed any additional flight time for mock fights, they weren't allowed without permission and permission was not typical. Commanders did not particularly care to risk planes, pilots and fuel that way. MAYBE, later in the war that lightened up a little, but I doubt it.

Both Allied and Axis pilots were well aware of the capabilities of the aircraft they fought against

No, they were well aware of REPUTATIONS and "blanket statement reports" about particular aircraft and your post proved that.

BnZs is trying to suggest that because everyone thought one thing or the other, that it was a hard fact that applied to all aircraft. Are you going to agree with him?

The example you used previously about the Spitfires meeting the Zeke and Oscar is more of a case study of dangers of hubris

Very observant, but you missed the point. Even in the face of undeniable FACTS, personal prejudices cloud reality. And BonZai there thinks there is no such thing as mass misinformation. Are you going to agree with that too?

[Oldman731]

I have never heard of an operational squadron on deployment being taught to fly. Please provide a reference.

56th FG had an in-theater training unit, operated by the group, where replacement pilots were brought up to snuff before they were permitted to fly combat missions.  Was just reading about this again in Roger Freeman's book on the 56th - "Wolfpack Warriors" or something like that.  This wasn't basic training; it was local detail stuff, radio operational procedures, group assembly, that sort of thing.  I assume other units had similar setups.

- oldmdan

[Fox]

One thing that I have not seen mentioned so far in this discussion is that allied planes like the P51 were using 150 octate fuel later in the war.  I don't believe the AH models are based on 150 octane fuel.  Any historical accounts of plane performance after the 150 octane fuel was introduced may be different than AH performance, at least in terms of speed and climb.

[hitech]

bnz what do you think that Turning Circle chart is displaying?

HiTech

[muzik]

This wasn't basic training; it was local detail stuff, radio operational procedures, group assembly, that sort of thing.  I assume other units had similar setups.

Local details!!!  This was orientation that everyone went through in every theater. This was not "continued" training that ackack was implying.

[GScholz]

Got quiet in here...