PDA

View Full Version : Grinding the accuracy axe: "Farber"



JG14_Josf
08-14-2004, 12:26 PM
There exist today a very good book about "Fighter Combat",
in fact,
that is the title of the book.

Fighter Combat (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0870210599/qid=1092494398/sr=ka-1/ref=pd_ka_1/102-0114504-1088959) by Robert Shaw sports a few quotes on the back cover.

Here is one of those quotes:

"As young fighter pilots in 1940, my colleagues and I searched desperately, and unsuccessfully, for sound air-fighting tactics. We had to learn the hard way. Decades later Robert Shaw felt the same way, but he resolved to do something about it. This fascinating book is the outcome. I recommend it to all those people interested in air combat."
-J.E. "Johnnie" Johnson
Air Vice-Marshal, RAF (Ret.)
Leading RAF Ace in Europe, WW-II

Robert Shaw has this to say about the accurate assesment of relative combat performance capabilities:

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Development of effective tactics against dissimilar aircraft is, however, highly dependent on intimate knowledge of all aspects of relative fighter performance and design, as well as total familiarity by the pilot with his own aircraft and weapons system. Comparison testing, in which enemy aircraft are flown against friendly fighters, is undeniably the best method of gathering this crucial information <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Comparison testing, says Robert Shaw, is undeniably the best method of gathering this crucial information.

Crucial information that determines how one plane stacks up against another plane and therefore what can be done tactically to defeat one plane with another plane.

Robert Shaw does not say; inspection of factory test reports is undeniably the best method.

Robert Shaw does not say; anecdotal combat reports offer the best method.

Robert Shaw does not say; computer analysis of physical properties is the best method. (see also - Boyd (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0316881465/qid=1092495482/sr=ka-1/ref=pd_ka_1/102-0114504-1088959))

Since it is undeniably the best way to gather cruicial information in determining relative combat performance capabilities by conducting comparision flight tests where each plane being evaluated is flown against the other than it stands to reason that this type of recorded event in history is potentially the best documentation for evaluating how accurate a game simulates relative combat ability.

This is not a big leap, and this is at the heart of concern for combat flight simulation enthusiasts like me. How accurate do the planes being simulated match up to what really happened in history. How accurate does the simulation represent what one pilot in one plane had to face when fighting another pilot in another plane. It is all about competition. In the game we fight for score, just as many did in history, only in history their lives were also on the line. We merely put our egos on the line.

Robert Shaw's best method is good enough for me.

The next obvious question then is:
Did history record any comparison testing done during WWII between fighter planes that actually fought in the war?

The answer is yes.

There are numerous examples of comparison testing done during the war that stand as evidence supporting accurate conclusions concerning relative combat performance capabilites.

One of the best examples I have found of war time comparision testing is the "Farber tests"

Alfred Price (the Author) found these "Farber test" documents. Here is what he had to say about those tests in his book titled:
Focke Wulf (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0750916346/qid=1092496937/sr=1-3/ref=sr_1_3/102-0114504-1088959?v=glance&s=books)

page 39
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Following initial flight trials at the Royal Aircraft Establishment at Farnborough in July 1942, the captured Focke Wulf 190 flew to the Air Fighting Development Unit at Duxford for tactical trials. The resultant report, issued in August 1942 and reproduced below almost in its entirety, is a model of what such an intelligence document should contain. In places the language was complimentary in the extreme. The reader should bear in mind that these are not the words of Focke Wulf salesman trying to boost his firm's product, but those of an enemy forced to give an opponent grudging admiration in time of war <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Also in Alfred Prices book is a statement made by Air Chief Marshal W.S. Douglas in a Most Secret letter to Fight Command HQ concerning those tests. The date of the letter is 17th July 1942:
"There is however no doubt in my mind, nor in the minds of my fighter pilots, that the Fw 190 is the best all round fighter in the world today [author's italics]"

If there exists in the world today an accurate documentation of the fighter combat situation in the Summer of 1942 then this "Farber" test is very close to the top of the list.
Those tests inspired the Air Chief Marshal to also conclude and state:
"At the beginning of the war our fighters possessed technical superiority over those of the enemy. We have gradually lost this lead and we are now in a position of inferiority."

The FW190s relative combat capabilities firmly placed the British in a position of inferiority because the German fighter pilots had the means to dominiate the British fighter pilots.

The next obvious question is what performance capabilities did the FW have that enabled it to out perform the British in combat?

Once those relative performance advantages are know then tactics can be indentified to suit the real situation.

First let's take a look at the "Farber" tests and see what the FW190 had going for it. Keep in mind that the British pilots flew this captured FW190 against many of their avaialable planes but for the purpose of this discussion it is important to maintain a sense of relevancy to the game IL2. For this reason I will begin my references with the 190A-3 vs Spitfire VB test results. The game models a Spitfire VB 1941 and an FW190A-4 which is probably the closest matchup possible in the game that can best represent the situation in the summer of 1942.

What did the British determine for relative climb performance between the FW190 and their Spitfire VBs?

Note: Ring's web page makes the "Farber" test documents available and are linked as references:

"49. Climb (http://www.lanpartyworld.com/ww2/images/pro_190_survey_b_4.jpg) The climb of the FW.190 is superior to that of the Spitfire VB at all heights. The best speeds for climbing are approximately the same. But the angle of the FW.190 is considerably steeper. Under maximum continuous climbing conditions the climb of the FW.190 is about 450 ft/min. better up to 25,000 feet."

Before moving on it may be important to indentify the importance of relative climb performance in air combat and the usage an advantage in climb performance has on the tactics envelope.

It occurs to me that this is a very good time to illustrate the three major divisions of tactics as describe in Robert Shaws book.

Relative performance variables such as climb performance dictate which tactics will work and which tactics depend upon luck or perhaps prayer.

Fighter Combat
by Robert Shaw
page 139

"The performance measures of most interest are turn performance (both instantaneous and sustained) and energy performance (climb, acceleration, and speed)."

page 141 - 142

"Encounters between a low-wing-loaded fighter and an enemy fighter with greater T/W are quite common. In this case each fighter has performance advantages and disadvantages relative to its opponent. The engagement stategy is for the pilot to exploit the opponent's most serious weaknesses while taking full advantage of his own fighter's greatest strengths."
"The low-wing-loaded fighter's greatest performance advantages are assumed to be good instantaneous turn performance, slow minimum speed, and tight sustained turn radius. In some cases this aircraft also might have a significant sutained-turn-rate advantage. Its weaknesses include inferior climb and acceleration performance under low-G conditions, and slower "top-end" speed."
"These characteristics are ideally suited to the use of angles tactics..."

"On the other hand, the pilot of a high-T/W fighter should concentrate on energy tactics when he is engaging a low-wing-loaded opponent."

Note: So far Shaw identifies two major tactical doctrines i.e. Angles and Energy fighting.
Also note: A climb performance advantage adds to the energy tactics envelope.

The "Farber" test results document a specific higher angle absolute avantage in maximum continuous climb that the FW190A-3 had over the Spitfire VB in the summer of 1942.

Next on the list of things that make for an energy fighter is the real and obvious combat advantage known as acceleration.

Before going back to Ring's excellent web page and call up the Farber test results for comparative acceleration capabilities I think it is good time to illuminate the limitations that exist when considering simple numerical performance values as opposed to the better or best, most accurate, comparative performance one on one testing.

Shaw
page 141
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>A fighters T/W is a fairly good indicator of its energy performance. This ratio is usually stated in terms of static sea-level thrust and a representative combat weight. For piston-engine aircraft a parameter known as "power loading," the ratio of aircraft weight to brake horsepower (normally maximum seal-level power), is used rather than T/W. Both of these measures may be misleading, however, since operation conditions of altitude and airspeed can affect two fighters in different ways...

...A fighter's aerodynamic efficiency, in particular its lift-to-drag ratio, is also vitally important to energy performance, especially at high G or high speed. In order to simplify this discussion, however, the term high T/W infers greater climb rate, faster acceleration, and higher maximum speed capability relative to the opponent. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Note again the importance of climb rate, faster acceleration and also higher maximum speed.
The FW190A-3 had a greater climb rate.

What about the next T/W "Energy fighter" performance attribute i.e. Faster acceleration?

50. (http://www.lanpartyworld.com/ww2/images/pro_190_survey_b_4.jpg) "With both aircraft flying at high cruising speed and then pulling up into a climb, the superior climb of the Fw 190 is even more marked. When both aircraft are pulled into a climb from a dive, the Fw 190 draws away very rapidly and the pilot of the Spitfire has no hope of catching it."

Dive. Comparative dives between the two aircraft have shown that the Fw 190 can leave the Spitfire with ease, particularly during the initial stages."

52. Manoeuvrability
"The Fw 190 has better acceleration under all conditions of flight and this must obviously be useful during combat."

Note: "obviously...useful during combat."

The Farber test results conducted in 1942 so far confirm 2 of the qualities that Robert Shaw describes as a high T/W fighter well suited for energy tactics. The remaining performance advantage is a higher maximum speed. Since the game IL2 does actually model this advantage it needs no reference in defense of its existance in reality. Suffice to say that the Farber tests confirm it.

The next question concerning my agenda of accuracy involves historical tactics employed by the real German fighter pilots flying their superior climbing, accelerating, and faster fighter plane, their high T/W energy fighter, their FW190.

The following account is taken from the book:
Wings of the Luftwaffe (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/1853104132/qid=1092503699/sr=1-1/ref=sr_1_1/102-0114504-1088959?v=glance&s=books)
by Capt. Eric Brown

Eric Brown flew captured German planes during WWII and this book describes his evaluation of those planes.

The following quote describes the very tactics that the FW190 pilots used to literally dominate over the British pilots. After presenting this quote I will offer another quote from Robert Shaw that confirms that the tactics used by the Germans are indeed what became known as "Energy tactics".

Wings of the Luftwaffe
page 80
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>It was concluded that the Fw 190 pilot trying to "mix it" with a Spitfire in the classic fashion of steep turning was doomed, for at any speed - even below the German fighter's stalling speed - it woud be out-turned by its British opponent. Of course, the Luftwaffe was aware of this fact and a somewhat odd style of dogfighting evolved in which the Fw 190 pilots endeavored to keep on the vertical plane by zooms and dives, while their Spitfire-mounted antagonists tried everything in the book to draw them on to the horizontal. If the German pilot lost his head and failed to resist the temptation to try a horizontal pursuit curve on a Spitfire, as likely as not, before he could recover the speed lost in a steep turn he would find another Spitfire turning inside him! On the other hand, the German pilot who kept zooming up and down was usually the recipient of only diffiuclt deflection shots of more than 30 deg. The Fw 190 had tremendous initial acceleration in a dive but it was extremely vulnerable during a pull-out, recovery having to be quite progressive with care not to kill the speed by "sinking". <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Now this from "Fighter Combat"
by Robert Shaw:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>In deriving tactics for use against a similar aircraft, two basic approaches are available: the "angles" fight and the "energy" fight. These labels refer to the first objective of the engagement. In the angles fight the tactician first seeks to gain a position advantage (angles), even at the expense of relative energy, and then he attempts to maintain or improve on this advantage until he achieves his required firing parameters. The purpose of the energy fight is to gain an energy advantage over the opponent while not yielding a decisive position advantage. Once a sufficient energy advantage has been attained, it must be converted to a lethal possition advantage, usually without surrendering the entire energy margin. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>


Note: Shaws 'gain an energy avantage...while not yielding a decisive position advantage sounds much like Eric Browns 'failed to resist the temptation...'

These are not the words of flight sim enthusiasts such as the ones who come up with terms like "Boom and Zoom". These quotes are from 'real' fighter pilots.

Fighter Combat is 'dog fighting'. It is a one on one kill or be killed contest. Comparative testing of the FW190A-3 against the Spitfire VB during the war (Shaw's undeniably best method) prove that the FW190 was the better dog fighter at that time in history during the summer of 1942.

So what do we have in the game?

The FW190A-4 in the game does not have anything close to 450ft/min better climb up to 25,000 meters over the Spitfire VB let alone a steeper climb angle. The situation is quite the reverse in the game. In the game the Spitfire is the better energy fighter and the better angles fighter when the performance of climb is considered.

The FW190 in the game is virtually identical in dive acceleration with the Spitfire VB (based upon much comparative in game test results made by numerous players).

The FW190 is again left without a vital performance advantage in simulation.

2 of the 3 relative performance advantages that the FW190 had over the Spitfire are not simulated and these performance advantages are vital for tactical application of specific historical maneuvers. The same maneuvers later labeled by Robert Shaw as "Energy Tactics".

So what can be done in the game with the historically inacurrate FW190A-4 when fighting the Spitfire VB 1941 (presumably an even less capable fighter in history than the fighters used in tests against the Farber FW190A-3)

In order to answer the question: what is left for the FW190 (the best all-round fighter plane) in the game to do when fighting the games version of the Spitfire VB?; it may help again to quote from Shaw's Fighter Combat:

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>In the steril, one-versus-one engagement, the pilot of the superior fighter normally should attempt to keep his speed the same as, or slightly below, that of his opponent.
The pilot of the inferior fighter in this scenario has real problems. He may not be able to avoid engagement, and he may not be able to escape once he is engaged. These problems may be alleviated, however, by a very thorough aircraft preflight inspection, followed by a decision to spend the day in the bar. If this luxury is not available, high-speed hit-and-run tactics or multiple-aircraft engagements may offer some relief; otherwise the pilot of the inferior fighter must be very good or very lucky." <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

How often has it been said on these boards as advice from FW 'experts' to questioning noobies that in order to be successful with the games FW it is a requirement to do exactly as what Robert Shaw describes as tactics suitible for an "inferior fighter".

Note: The three major tactical doctrines are presented as Angles, Energy, and Hit and Run.


There it is.

This is my axe to grind.

The contradiction is as obvious as black and white.

"the best all-round fighter in the world today"
vs
"inferior fighter"

The historical test results of comparative combat test trials.

vs

In game experience.

Some of you, if there are any that is, reading this will automatically (like pavlov's dogs) assume my intent is to take from them their competative advantage. This is far from the truth, a complete fabrication of imagination.

My intent is to express an understanding of truth. My hope is that future simulations of WWII air combat are made more accurate than the current best example i.e. IL2/FB/AEP.

Any effort made to produce or change any computer program is completely out of my hands.

It is absolutely absurd to think otherwise, and obviously political in nature to accuse me of this dubious intent.

If anyone has any issues with the nature, condition, and future development of any software I suggest they take their concerns up with the producers of that product, and leave me alone.

This is my honest opinion presented for consideration.

PLEASE, do not respond to this thread if you have your own agenda, your own axe to grind. Instead be considerate and start your own thread and champion your own cause.

If you do not do the considerate thing, if you instist upon polluting this thread with 'off topic' garbage then I can only say with certain knowledge and preventative intent that you will be exposing yourself for the low, base ingrate that you insist upon being.

Unfortunatley this type of warning is required on this board. A little preventative maintenance now may deter a whole lot of garbage later.

This topic is for discussion on the historical perspective presented by the combat test trials conducted in 1942 when the British captured a combat example of the FW190A-3 and to discuss how accurate the current best flight sim manages to capture that situation in the summer of 1942.

The captured FW190 was flown by the German pilot: Arnim Farber thus generating the test documents title: "Farber tests"

In order to police this topic as it hopefully moves along, (I appreciate any reasoned, on-topic, replies even those that are contrary to my assumtions, beliefs, guesstimates, and conclusions) in order to keep things on topic I will kindly suggest that 'off topic' responses be removed, even if it requires a note to the moderators.

In the event that 'off topic' responses continue or are not removable for whatever reason my hope is that this communication will at least open a few eyes to a very probable accurate assesment of the way it really was during the summer of 1942, and to expose the myth created by inaccurate flight simulation concerning the dog fighting capabilities of the FW190A series fighter planes.

My hope continues that if a few eyes are oppened to this perspective of accuracy then future flight sims will be more likely to move toward rather than away from accurate modeling.

One more note on 'off topic' responses concerns intent. This topic has an expressed intent. Grinding the accuracy axe. This is the stated agenda of this topic thread. Note too the further clarification "Farber". This topic concerns the "Farber" example as it stands as a source of information supporting a perspective of accuracy for WWII combat flight simulation.

[This message was edited by JG14_Josf on Sat August 14 2004 at 12:04 PM.]

JG14_Josf
08-14-2004, 12:26 PM
There exist today a very good book about "Fighter Combat",
in fact,
that is the title of the book.

Fighter Combat (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0870210599/qid=1092494398/sr=ka-1/ref=pd_ka_1/102-0114504-1088959) by Robert Shaw sports a few quotes on the back cover.

Here is one of those quotes:

"As young fighter pilots in 1940, my colleagues and I searched desperately, and unsuccessfully, for sound air-fighting tactics. We had to learn the hard way. Decades later Robert Shaw felt the same way, but he resolved to do something about it. This fascinating book is the outcome. I recommend it to all those people interested in air combat."
-J.E. "Johnnie" Johnson
Air Vice-Marshal, RAF (Ret.)
Leading RAF Ace in Europe, WW-II

Robert Shaw has this to say about the accurate assesment of relative combat performance capabilities:

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Development of effective tactics against dissimilar aircraft is, however, highly dependent on intimate knowledge of all aspects of relative fighter performance and design, as well as total familiarity by the pilot with his own aircraft and weapons system. Comparison testing, in which enemy aircraft are flown against friendly fighters, is undeniably the best method of gathering this crucial information <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Comparison testing, says Robert Shaw, is undeniably the best method of gathering this crucial information.

Crucial information that determines how one plane stacks up against another plane and therefore what can be done tactically to defeat one plane with another plane.

Robert Shaw does not say; inspection of factory test reports is undeniably the best method.

Robert Shaw does not say; anecdotal combat reports offer the best method.

Robert Shaw does not say; computer analysis of physical properties is the best method. (see also - Boyd (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0316881465/qid=1092495482/sr=ka-1/ref=pd_ka_1/102-0114504-1088959))

Since it is undeniably the best way to gather cruicial information in determining relative combat performance capabilities by conducting comparision flight tests where each plane being evaluated is flown against the other than it stands to reason that this type of recorded event in history is potentially the best documentation for evaluating how accurate a game simulates relative combat ability.

This is not a big leap, and this is at the heart of concern for combat flight simulation enthusiasts like me. How accurate do the planes being simulated match up to what really happened in history. How accurate does the simulation represent what one pilot in one plane had to face when fighting another pilot in another plane. It is all about competition. In the game we fight for score, just as many did in history, only in history their lives were also on the line. We merely put our egos on the line.

Robert Shaw's best method is good enough for me.

The next obvious question then is:
Did history record any comparison testing done during WWII between fighter planes that actually fought in the war?

The answer is yes.

There are numerous examples of comparison testing done during the war that stand as evidence supporting accurate conclusions concerning relative combat performance capabilites.

One of the best examples I have found of war time comparision testing is the "Farber tests"

Alfred Price (the Author) found these "Farber test" documents. Here is what he had to say about those tests in his book titled:
Focke Wulf (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0750916346/qid=1092496937/sr=1-3/ref=sr_1_3/102-0114504-1088959?v=glance&s=books)

page 39
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Following initial flight trials at the Royal Aircraft Establishment at Farnborough in July 1942, the captured Focke Wulf 190 flew to the Air Fighting Development Unit at Duxford for tactical trials. The resultant report, issued in August 1942 and reproduced below almost in its entirety, is a model of what such an intelligence document should contain. In places the language was complimentary in the extreme. The reader should bear in mind that these are not the words of Focke Wulf salesman trying to boost his firm's product, but those of an enemy forced to give an opponent grudging admiration in time of war <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Also in Alfred Prices book is a statement made by Air Chief Marshal W.S. Douglas in a Most Secret letter to Fight Command HQ concerning those tests. The date of the letter is 17th July 1942:
"There is however no doubt in my mind, nor in the minds of my fighter pilots, that the Fw 190 is the best all round fighter in the world today [author's italics]"

If there exists in the world today an accurate documentation of the fighter combat situation in the Summer of 1942 then this "Farber" test is very close to the top of the list.
Those tests inspired the Air Chief Marshal to also conclude and state:
"At the beginning of the war our fighters possessed technical superiority over those of the enemy. We have gradually lost this lead and we are now in a position of inferiority."

The FW190s relative combat capabilities firmly placed the British in a position of inferiority because the German fighter pilots had the means to dominiate the British fighter pilots.

The next obvious question is what performance capabilities did the FW have that enabled it to out perform the British in combat?

Once those relative performance advantages are know then tactics can be indentified to suit the real situation.

First let's take a look at the "Farber" tests and see what the FW190 had going for it. Keep in mind that the British pilots flew this captured FW190 against many of their avaialable planes but for the purpose of this discussion it is important to maintain a sense of relevancy to the game IL2. For this reason I will begin my references with the 190A-3 vs Spitfire VB test results. The game models a Spitfire VB 1941 and an FW190A-4 which is probably the closest matchup possible in the game that can best represent the situation in the summer of 1942.

What did the British determine for relative climb performance between the FW190 and their Spitfire VBs?

Note: Ring's web page makes the "Farber" test documents available and are linked as references:

"49. Climb (http://www.lanpartyworld.com/ww2/images/pro_190_survey_b_4.jpg) The climb of the FW.190 is superior to that of the Spitfire VB at all heights. The best speeds for climbing are approximately the same. But the angle of the FW.190 is considerably steeper. Under maximum continuous climbing conditions the climb of the FW.190 is about 450 ft/min. better up to 25,000 feet."

Before moving on it may be important to indentify the importance of relative climb performance in air combat and the usage an advantage in climb performance has on the tactics envelope.

It occurs to me that this is a very good time to illustrate the three major divisions of tactics as describe in Robert Shaws book.

Relative performance variables such as climb performance dictate which tactics will work and which tactics depend upon luck or perhaps prayer.

Fighter Combat
by Robert Shaw
page 139

"The performance measures of most interest are turn performance (both instantaneous and sustained) and energy performance (climb, acceleration, and speed)."

page 141 - 142

"Encounters between a low-wing-loaded fighter and an enemy fighter with greater T/W are quite common. In this case each fighter has performance advantages and disadvantages relative to its opponent. The engagement stategy is for the pilot to exploit the opponent's most serious weaknesses while taking full advantage of his own fighter's greatest strengths."
"The low-wing-loaded fighter's greatest performance advantages are assumed to be good instantaneous turn performance, slow minimum speed, and tight sustained turn radius. In some cases this aircraft also might have a significant sutained-turn-rate advantage. Its weaknesses include inferior climb and acceleration performance under low-G conditions, and slower "top-end" speed."
"These characteristics are ideally suited to the use of angles tactics..."

"On the other hand, the pilot of a high-T/W fighter should concentrate on energy tactics when he is engaging a low-wing-loaded opponent."

Note: So far Shaw identifies two major tactical doctrines i.e. Angles and Energy fighting.
Also note: A climb performance advantage adds to the energy tactics envelope.

The "Farber" test results document a specific higher angle absolute avantage in maximum continuous climb that the FW190A-3 had over the Spitfire VB in the summer of 1942.

Next on the list of things that make for an energy fighter is the real and obvious combat advantage known as acceleration.

Before going back to Ring's excellent web page and call up the Farber test results for comparative acceleration capabilities I think it is good time to illuminate the limitations that exist when considering simple numerical performance values as opposed to the better or best, most accurate, comparative performance one on one testing.

Shaw
page 141
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>A fighters T/W is a fairly good indicator of its energy performance. This ratio is usually stated in terms of static sea-level thrust and a representative combat weight. For piston-engine aircraft a parameter known as "power loading," the ratio of aircraft weight to brake horsepower (normally maximum seal-level power), is used rather than T/W. Both of these measures may be misleading, however, since operation conditions of altitude and airspeed can affect two fighters in different ways...

...A fighter's aerodynamic efficiency, in particular its lift-to-drag ratio, is also vitally important to energy performance, especially at high G or high speed. In order to simplify this discussion, however, the term high T/W infers greater climb rate, faster acceleration, and higher maximum speed capability relative to the opponent. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Note again the importance of climb rate, faster acceleration and also higher maximum speed.
The FW190A-3 had a greater climb rate.

What about the next T/W "Energy fighter" performance attribute i.e. Faster acceleration?

50. (http://www.lanpartyworld.com/ww2/images/pro_190_survey_b_4.jpg) "With both aircraft flying at high cruising speed and then pulling up into a climb, the superior climb of the Fw 190 is even more marked. When both aircraft are pulled into a climb from a dive, the Fw 190 draws away very rapidly and the pilot of the Spitfire has no hope of catching it."

Dive. Comparative dives between the two aircraft have shown that the Fw 190 can leave the Spitfire with ease, particularly during the initial stages."

52. Manoeuvrability
"The Fw 190 has better acceleration under all conditions of flight and this must obviously be useful during combat."

Note: "obviously...useful during combat."

The Farber test results conducted in 1942 so far confirm 2 of the qualities that Robert Shaw describes as a high T/W fighter well suited for energy tactics. The remaining performance advantage is a higher maximum speed. Since the game IL2 does actually model this advantage it needs no reference in defense of its existance in reality. Suffice to say that the Farber tests confirm it.

The next question concerning my agenda of accuracy involves historical tactics employed by the real German fighter pilots flying their superior climbing, accelerating, and faster fighter plane, their high T/W energy fighter, their FW190.

The following account is taken from the book:
Wings of the Luftwaffe (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/1853104132/qid=1092503699/sr=1-1/ref=sr_1_1/102-0114504-1088959?v=glance&s=books)
by Capt. Eric Brown

Eric Brown flew captured German planes during WWII and this book describes his evaluation of those planes.

The following quote describes the very tactics that the FW190 pilots used to literally dominate over the British pilots. After presenting this quote I will offer another quote from Robert Shaw that confirms that the tactics used by the Germans are indeed what became known as "Energy tactics".

Wings of the Luftwaffe
page 80
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>It was concluded that the Fw 190 pilot trying to "mix it" with a Spitfire in the classic fashion of steep turning was doomed, for at any speed - even below the German fighter's stalling speed - it woud be out-turned by its British opponent. Of course, the Luftwaffe was aware of this fact and a somewhat odd style of dogfighting evolved in which the Fw 190 pilots endeavored to keep on the vertical plane by zooms and dives, while their Spitfire-mounted antagonists tried everything in the book to draw them on to the horizontal. If the German pilot lost his head and failed to resist the temptation to try a horizontal pursuit curve on a Spitfire, as likely as not, before he could recover the speed lost in a steep turn he would find another Spitfire turning inside him! On the other hand, the German pilot who kept zooming up and down was usually the recipient of only diffiuclt deflection shots of more than 30 deg. The Fw 190 had tremendous initial acceleration in a dive but it was extremely vulnerable during a pull-out, recovery having to be quite progressive with care not to kill the speed by "sinking". <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Now this from "Fighter Combat"
by Robert Shaw:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>In deriving tactics for use against a similar aircraft, two basic approaches are available: the "angles" fight and the "energy" fight. These labels refer to the first objective of the engagement. In the angles fight the tactician first seeks to gain a position advantage (angles), even at the expense of relative energy, and then he attempts to maintain or improve on this advantage until he achieves his required firing parameters. The purpose of the energy fight is to gain an energy advantage over the opponent while not yielding a decisive position advantage. Once a sufficient energy advantage has been attained, it must be converted to a lethal possition advantage, usually without surrendering the entire energy margin. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>


Note: Shaws 'gain an energy avantage...while not yielding a decisive position advantage sounds much like Eric Browns 'failed to resist the temptation...'

These are not the words of flight sim enthusiasts such as the ones who come up with terms like "Boom and Zoom". These quotes are from 'real' fighter pilots.

Fighter Combat is 'dog fighting'. It is a one on one kill or be killed contest. Comparative testing of the FW190A-3 against the Spitfire VB during the war (Shaw's undeniably best method) prove that the FW190 was the better dog fighter at that time in history during the summer of 1942.

So what do we have in the game?

The FW190A-4 in the game does not have anything close to 450ft/min better climb up to 25,000 meters over the Spitfire VB let alone a steeper climb angle. The situation is quite the reverse in the game. In the game the Spitfire is the better energy fighter and the better angles fighter when the performance of climb is considered.

The FW190 in the game is virtually identical in dive acceleration with the Spitfire VB (based upon much comparative in game test results made by numerous players).

The FW190 is again left without a vital performance advantage in simulation.

2 of the 3 relative performance advantages that the FW190 had over the Spitfire are not simulated and these performance advantages are vital for tactical application of specific historical maneuvers. The same maneuvers later labeled by Robert Shaw as "Energy Tactics".

So what can be done in the game with the historically inacurrate FW190A-4 when fighting the Spitfire VB 1941 (presumably an even less capable fighter in history than the fighters used in tests against the Farber FW190A-3)

In order to answer the question: what is left for the FW190 (the best all-round fighter plane) in the game to do when fighting the games version of the Spitfire VB?; it may help again to quote from Shaw's Fighter Combat:

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>In the steril, one-versus-one engagement, the pilot of the superior fighter normally should attempt to keep his speed the same as, or slightly below, that of his opponent.
The pilot of the inferior fighter in this scenario has real problems. He may not be able to avoid engagement, and he may not be able to escape once he is engaged. These problems may be alleviated, however, by a very thorough aircraft preflight inspection, followed by a decision to spend the day in the bar. If this luxury is not available, high-speed hit-and-run tactics or multiple-aircraft engagements may offer some relief; otherwise the pilot of the inferior fighter must be very good or very lucky." <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

How often has it been said on these boards as advice from FW 'experts' to questioning noobies that in order to be successful with the games FW it is a requirement to do exactly as what Robert Shaw describes as tactics suitible for an "inferior fighter".

Note: The three major tactical doctrines are presented as Angles, Energy, and Hit and Run.


There it is.

This is my axe to grind.

The contradiction is as obvious as black and white.

"the best all-round fighter in the world today"
vs
"inferior fighter"

The historical test results of comparative combat test trials.

vs

In game experience.

Some of you, if there are any that is, reading this will automatically (like pavlov's dogs) assume my intent is to take from them their competative advantage. This is far from the truth, a complete fabrication of imagination.

My intent is to express an understanding of truth. My hope is that future simulations of WWII air combat are made more accurate than the current best example i.e. IL2/FB/AEP.

Any effort made to produce or change any computer program is completely out of my hands.

It is absolutely absurd to think otherwise, and obviously political in nature to accuse me of this dubious intent.

If anyone has any issues with the nature, condition, and future development of any software I suggest they take their concerns up with the producers of that product, and leave me alone.

This is my honest opinion presented for consideration.

PLEASE, do not respond to this thread if you have your own agenda, your own axe to grind. Instead be considerate and start your own thread and champion your own cause.

If you do not do the considerate thing, if you instist upon polluting this thread with 'off topic' garbage then I can only say with certain knowledge and preventative intent that you will be exposing yourself for the low, base ingrate that you insist upon being.

Unfortunatley this type of warning is required on this board. A little preventative maintenance now may deter a whole lot of garbage later.

This topic is for discussion on the historical perspective presented by the combat test trials conducted in 1942 when the British captured a combat example of the FW190A-3 and to discuss how accurate the current best flight sim manages to capture that situation in the summer of 1942.

The captured FW190 was flown by the German pilot: Arnim Farber thus generating the test documents title: "Farber tests"

In order to police this topic as it hopefully moves along, (I appreciate any reasoned, on-topic, replies even those that are contrary to my assumtions, beliefs, guesstimates, and conclusions) in order to keep things on topic I will kindly suggest that 'off topic' responses be removed, even if it requires a note to the moderators.

In the event that 'off topic' responses continue or are not removable for whatever reason my hope is that this communication will at least open a few eyes to a very probable accurate assesment of the way it really was during the summer of 1942, and to expose the myth created by inaccurate flight simulation concerning the dog fighting capabilities of the FW190A series fighter planes.

My hope continues that if a few eyes are oppened to this perspective of accuracy then future flight sims will be more likely to move toward rather than away from accurate modeling.

One more note on 'off topic' responses concerns intent. This topic has an expressed intent. Grinding the accuracy axe. This is the stated agenda of this topic thread. Note too the further clarification "Farber". This topic concerns the "Farber" example as it stands as a source of information supporting a perspective of accuracy for WWII combat flight simulation.

[This message was edited by JG14_Josf on Sat August 14 2004 at 12:04 PM.]

Korolov
08-14-2004, 02:01 PM
While I don't agree the Spitfire is completely superior to the Fw-190, I must admit this is a very informative post & well written. There's a lot of insight to air combat here.

http://www.mechmodels.com/fbstuff/klv_sigp38shark1a.jpg

F19_Ob
08-14-2004, 02:53 PM
Interesting read, thnx.

U might want to peek at this. ( obs 4 interviews)
http://www.airforce.users.ru/lend-lease/english/articles/golodnikov/part1.htm

He compares quite many allied planes and also with the 109 and fw190.
In the fourth interview he makes a few more between P40 and 109. and also fw190 wich in his eyes performed "normal" but not superior.

His thoughts about a planes "actual" combatperformance was also interesting.

JG14_Josf
08-14-2004, 04:04 PM
Karolov,

Thanks for the reasoned response.

If my post suggests complete superiority then that needs further clarification.

Shaw describes a situation where a plane can be "double-superior":

page 183
"A "double-superior" condition occurs when one fighter has both significantly higher T/W and lower wing loading than its opponent. Obviously the unlucky adversary in this situation is "double inferior".

The above quote preceeds the follow that has already been sighted in the original post:

"The pilot of the inferior fighter in this scenario has real problems. He may not be able to avoid engagement, and he may not be able to escape once he is engaged...high-speed hit-and-run tactics or multiple-aircraft engagements may offer some relief..."

In the game version of the Spit/FW situation the FW is closer but not quite 'double inferior' since the FW is modeled with a speed advantage. The FW can escape.

In reality as described by Eric Brown and the "Farber" tests; the Spitfire was also not "double-inferior" because of a significantly lower wing loading held by the spitfire over the FW.

To further illustrate how the situation is reversed in the game I suggest a poll to ask what is required for a player flying an FW190A-4 when that player is trying to survive in a hosted game where Spitfire VBs will be encountered.

My response to that poll would be to maintain high speed, and don't turn. Basically suprise the enemy and leave before the Spitfire pilot gains the inevitable energy advantage. I would add that this advantage will occcur in short order.

Now read this recommendation generated by the "Farber" plane test results:

"The above trials have shown that the Spitfire VB must cruise at high speed when in an area where enemy fighters can be expected. It will, then, in addition to lessening the chances of being successfully 'bounced', have a better chance of catching the Fw 190, particularly if it has the advantage of surprise."

Of course that is sound advice for any real or simulated fighter pilot, if survival is important. However in the real world and the simulated world dog fights occur. In reality it is strongly indicated that the FW190 pilots employed energy tactics in dog fights to defeat Spitfires, as long as they did not make the mistake of allowing the Spitfire pilots any parity in energy; the FW pilots were able to 'stay and fight'.

From this book titled:
Luftwaffe Fighter Aces the Jagdflieger and their Combat Tactics and Techniques (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/1853675601/qid=1092520737/sr=1-2/ref=sr_1_2/102-0114504-1088959?v=glance&s=books)
by Mike Spick is the following quote:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>With the Advent of the FW 190A, this was not as critical as it once had been. The Aircraft was a superb dogfighter, and its pilots used it as such. The previous summer, faced with slashing attacks by the 109s, the constant complaint of RAF pilots was that 'Jerry' didn't stay and fight, totally ignoring the fact that in the 109 this was tactically correct. Now they were repaid in spades: in his new FW 190A, 'Jerry' stayed and fought as never before. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>


I found this quote from the Golodnikov web page:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>When the later types Bf-109G and FW-190 appeared, the P-40 Kittyhawk became somewhat dated, but not by much. An experienced pilot could fight an equal fight with it. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Perhaps 'somewhat dated' is analagous to 'less able to employ energy tactics due to lower T/W' it may not mean that the P-40 suffered from a 'double inferior' condition. The idea behind energy fighting is to make sure the fight is never equal, that the energy fighter always holds the escape card and uses that option before relative energy goes into the negative.

Bearcat99
08-14-2004, 04:54 PM
This is one of the longest, most well written posts I have seen here in some time. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-surprised.gif


I have just resigned myself to the fact that.... there are some things that will just be difficult to get down. The P-51 is not as accurate according to some of the things I have read as well however I feel relatively confident that, given the fact that the game engine is probably at least 5 years old and has it's limits and the diversity of aircraft in the sim, that we have here in this sim as you said the best FMs to date. I have resigned myself to look to BoB since THAT will have an entirely new physics engine and be on another level. As you said.... to paraphrase.. for better or worse FB is still the best thing out at the moment.

<UL TYPE=SQUARE>http://www.jodavidsmeyer.com/combat/bookstore/tuskegeebondposter.jpg (http://www.tuskegeeairmen.org)[/list]<UL TYPE=SQUARE>vflyer@comcast.net [/list]<UL TYPE=SQUARE>99thPursuit Squadron IL2 Forgotten Battles (http://www.geocities.com/rt_bearcat)[/list]
UDQMG (http://www.uberdemon.com/index2.html) | HYPERLOBBY (http://hyperfighter.jinak.cz/) | Sturmovik Essentials (http://forums.ubi.com/eve/forums?a=tpc&s=400102&f=23110283&m=51910959) | MUDMOVERS (http://magnum-pc.netfirms.com/mudmovers/index.htm)

IMMERSION BABY!!

hop2002
08-14-2004, 08:23 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>PLEASE, do not respond to this thread if you have your own agenda, your own axe to grind. Instead be considerate and start your own thread and champion your own cause.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

This, I take it, is aimed at me.

I don't have an axe to grind, or a cause to champion, I'm interested in discussing the historical aspects of air combat.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Comparison testing, says Robert Shaw, is undeniably the best method of gathering this crucial information.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

What if they get it wrong in the comparison test?

What if they run the captured aircraft at a higher power rating than it's supposed to run at, by mistake, and run it at a lighter weight than it's supposed to be?

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>The FW190A-4 in the game does not have anything close to 450ft/min better climb up to 25,000 meters over the Spitfire VB let alone a steeper climb angle. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

It shouldn't

The test against Faber's aircraft says it should, but the tests of Spitfires and Fw 190s say it shouldn't, nowhere near.

At sea level, they should be close, as altitude increases the Spitfire should gain more and more of an advantage.

What happens when you have a single test that conflicts with other tests? Do you suspect an error in the one test, or in all the others?

Here is what the Faber tests says about the 190, under maximum continuous climb, against the Spit F IX, under maximum continuous climb:

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>During comparitive climbs at various heights up to 23,000ft, with both aircraft flying under maximum continuous climbing conditions, little difference was found between the two aircraft, although on the whole the Spitfire IX was slightly better. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

So, up to 23,000ft the Spitfire should be "slightly better"

We have a normal rating climb test for the Spitfire:

http://www.fourthfightergroup.com/eagles/bf274.html

Rate of climb is 3200 ft/min from sea level to 14,000ft, then drops down to 1780 ft by 23,000ft.

Now, this is what the Faber test had to say about climbs vs the Spit V:

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>The climb of the FW.190 is superior to that of the Spitfire VB at all heights. The best speeds for climbing are approximately the same. But the angle of the FW.190 is considerably steeper. Under maximum continuous climbing conditions the climb of the FW.190 is about 450 ft/min. better up to 25,000 feet.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

So the Spit V is worse at all heights. In fact, it tells us it is 450 ft/min worse.

We know the Spit IX was slightly better, at 3200 ft/min up to 14,000ft, so the FW 190 should be close to that. The Spit V, at 450 ft/min worse than the 190, should be around 500 ft/min worse than the Spit IX, around 2,700 ft/min.

We have a test of the Spit V we can look at, as well:

http://www.fourthfightergroup.com/eagles/w3134.html

Up to 15,000ft, the Spit V climbs at 3250 ft/min, slightly better than the Spit IX.

How can the 190 be 450 ft/min better than the Spit V, and slightly worse than the Spit IX, when the Spit IX is slightly worse than the Spit V?

Now, from the descriptions, we expected 2,700 ft/min for the Spit V. Look Here:

http://www.fourthfightergroup.com/eagles/aa878.html

This actually fits the report, but it's for a Spit VC with 4 20mm cannon and 480 rounds of ammo:

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>The tests were made at a take-off weight of 6,965 lb. with the centre of gravity 7.3 inches aft of the datum. This is the loading of the aeroplane when fitted with 4 x 20 mm. guns and full service equipment. Although at the time of test 2 x 20 mm. and 4 x .303" guns were fitted, the aeroplane had been ballasted internally the give this weight in connection with the other tests being made to obtain comparitive performance figures with the two types of armament.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

We have 2 20mm cannon and 120 rounds of ammo in game, which weighs 4 - 500 lbs less.

The only Spit V that fits the climb differences is a Vc with 4 20mm, but the report says the Spit V was a Vb. So which is right? The performance suggests a VC, the report says a Vb, but the Vb should have outclimbed (slightly) the Spit IX under climbing power, and yet the report suggests it was about 500 ft/min worse.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Shaw describes a situation where a plane can be "double-superior":

page 183
"A "double-superior" condition occurs when one fighter has both significantly higher T/W and lower wing loading than its opponent. Obviously the unlucky adversary in this situation is "double inferior". <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I know I'll get flamed for this, but here goes:

I've worked out the power to weight ratios for the Spit IXs, Spit Vs, and Fw 190 A3 and A5.

I'll give the data I am working from, both so you can check the maths, and so that anyvbody can correct the data if they have a source that says otherwise.

The weights I have are:

190 A3 8770 lbs
Faber's 190 A3 8580 lbs (Faber's 190 was weighed, this was the figure found. Whether it was missing some equipment, I don't know)

190 A5 8800 lbs

Spit Vb 6525 lbs (we have a Vb in game)

Spit IX 7480 lbs (The F and LF IX both weigh the same)


Power. All powers are unrammed

190 A3 1530 hp sea level, 1210 at 20,000ft (This is at 1.32 ata)
Faber's 190 1800 sl, 1400 20k (This is at 1.42 ata, which is what Faber's 190 was run at)

190 A5 1800 sl, 1400 20k (again at 1.42 ata, I don't think 1.65 ata was allowed until summer 44)

Spit V This is more complex, as the Spit V had 3 seperate ratings at different times. It start at 9 lbs, went to 12 lbs, then after the test against Faber's plane, 16 lbs)

Spit V @
9 lbs 1010 hp at sea level, 1120 at 20,000ft

12 lbs 1190 sl, 1120 20k

16 lbs 1380 sl, 1120 20k

Spit IX There are 2 relevant Spit IXs, the F IX tested against Faber's plane at 15 lbs, and the LF IX which ran at 18 lbs that we have in game

F IX 15 lbs 1350 at sea level, 1260 at 20k
LF IX 18 lbs 1650 sl, 1480 20k


That's the raw data. If you like, you can work out the wing loadings, the Spit's wings were 242 sq ft, the 190s 197 sq ft (iirc). The Spit obviously wins the wing loading hands down

The power loadings I get from the above figures are:
<pre class="ip-ubbcode-code-pre">
Plane SeaLevel 20,000ft
190 A3 5.7 7.2
FaberA3 4.8 6.1
190 A5 4.9 6.3

Spit V
9 lbs 6.5 5.8
12 lbs 5.5 5.8
16 lbs 4.7 5.8

F IX 5.5 5.9
LF IX 4.5 5.0
</pre>

The figures are in lbs per hp, so lower is better.

Please feel free to check these, with so many numbers I might have made a mistake somewhere, and as I said aI welcome any different data on weight or HP.

As far as I can see, the 190s are worse than all the Spits in power to weight at 20,000ft. They are better than the Spit V at 9 lbs and 12 lbs at sea level, worse than the Spit V at 16 lbs at sea level.

In game, we have a Spit V with the speed of 9 lbs, the climb rate of 16 lbs, so take your pick which one it's supposed to be.

LEXX_Luthor
08-14-2004, 09:33 PM
Thanks Josf. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/11.gif Awsum stuff here and no Whines about your neat presentation. Just one minor thing about our previous relationship...

We agree comparison testing is the *best* method to find how planes stack up against each other for the purpose of using one to defeat the other in air combat. Proof is in how each nation quickly conducted comparison testing and sent the results to frontline squadrons. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif Although such tests were always accompanied by extensive traditional flight testing of captured planes--if such flight testing was not helpful it would not have been done.

Josf:: <BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>
Comparison testing, says Robert Shaw, is undeniably the best method of gathering this crucial information.

Crucial information that determines how one plane stacks up against another plane and therefore what can be done tactically to defeat one plane with another plane.

Robert Shaw does not say; inspection of factory test reports is undeniably the best method.

Robert Shaw does not say; anecdotal combat reports offer the best method.

Robert Shaw does not say; computer analysis of physical properties is the best method. (see also - Boyd)<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/11.gif

We cannot create a computer simulation of a plane by using historical comparison tests (author did not address flight sim creation), which is why you are are a flight sim enthusiast, why I am an FB enthusiast (only), and why Oleg is a flight sim Developer.

----------------------


... there is a way ....


If we used the real factory test data for just one (1) aircraft, and then used historical comparison tests with that one plane against another then we could theoretically have a basis to create a 2 plane flight sim. Now, if the first plane had historical comparison tests with another plane, we can add a third aircraft, and so on with each plane that we can find historical comparison tests with our "base" plane. But, like Multiple Inheritance in C++ we can do much, much more. The second aircraft, which was Derived (an actual C++ inheritance word) from the first original "base" plane may be found to have historical comparison tests with more planes--planes that were never historically compared to the original "base" plane, and such farther derived planes may compared with even more planes further removed from the original (if we find the historical tests if any). Thus we may build a multi~plane flight sim with only factory data of just one plane. Granted, the gaps that may appear in the plane set for lack of historical comparison tests could be embarassing, but if you think about it, aircraft on both sides of a given Theater of operations would probably have historical comparison tests that could be found. mmm

Yes its silly, but if we tried to build a flight sim, with only one (1) FM programmer, we would probably ... mmm


I'd like to hear more about Fw~190 acceleration. I was always under the impression it was only "average" (which means *good* but not Great). Thanks!



...and move aside hop, where its safe, Josf's disclaimer was for me. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-happy.gif



[This message was edited by LEXX_Luthor on Sat August 14 2004 at 08:44 PM.]

[This message was edited by LEXX_Luthor on Sat August 14 2004 at 08:55 PM.]

horseback
08-14-2004, 11:18 PM
Okay, Pavlov, you've rung your bell and the usual dogs are all salivating madly.

Wonderful post, Josf. Well structured, well reasoned, crystal clear.

Faber's 190 was one of a very few pristine examples of a frontline fighter falling into an enemy's hands during wartime. It would be the equivalent of a brand new F-15A mistakenly landing in East Germany in 1972 (or a MiG-25 landing in say, Japan in the same decade). As it was, very few enemy aircraft were acquired in good condition by either side, and given that parts, manuals and tech reps from the other side were notoriously hard to get a hold of, keeping them in good condition was a chancy proposition. It is debatable whether any high performance aircraft would be capable of its best performance after a week of ignorant, ham-fisted testing in enemy hands.

The issue in the game is that the FM for the FW-190 seems to be based on its perceived performance vs the Soviet fighters of the day (and bear in mind that a significant portion of FWs served in ground attack units, with extra armor, bomb or rocket racks). From in the earliest days of Il-2 Sturmovik, there was much debate and complaint about the stodginess of the FW-190's FM, compared to the reputation it earned in medium to high altitude combat in the West. Some, unfortunately, got nasty and personal, and ultimately led to some hardening of positions at 1C/Maddox Games.

The Spitfires in the game are a relative Johnny come lately, benefit from much better press and possibly a more complementary evaluation from TSAGI during the war, although it was noted that while the American P-39s were delivered new, the British Lend-Lease fighters were often delivered in well-worn condition.

In any case, there doesn't seem to be an absolute standard that all the FMs are measured against.

If, for instance, the 'Gold Standard' was designated the La-5FN, with each of its flight characteristics measured as a 10.00, then an a/c with somewhat lesser accelleration at 3000m would have its accelleration graded at 8.75 at that altitude, while since that same a/c had a higher diving speed would have that characteristic rated as an 11.25, if it were that much better in that respect.

This would take a lot of work just putting together the relative strength tables, not to mention the horrendous amount of programmer time converting that information into a practical consistant FM for each aircraft at each altitude envelope. And it still wouldn't make everybody happy.

cheers

horseback

"Here's your new Mustangs, boys. You can learn to fly'em on the way to the target. Cheers!" -LTCOL Don Blakeslee, 4th FG CO, February 27th, 1944

BfHeFwMe
08-15-2004, 12:36 AM
Brilliant analysis, they were not waging a defensive war when this fighter appeared, so logically why would anyone believe they waste the effort to build a hit and run only machine.

Fw's are a bore, there is not much of a war against the axis in game. Most of my combat time is spent flying US vs Russian, that's a fair and fun fight. At least get us some cutting edge Italian stuff, be more punch there I suspect.

Can't wait for Pac Fighters, going to dump the Euro theatre and east front for good, tired of fighting against glass jaw wonders and helpless lumberwagons.

JG14_Josf
08-15-2004, 12:44 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>I don't have an axe to grind <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Then take your non grinding axe and do whatever it is your doing with it somewhere else, I am significantly dissapointed in this misdirection and obfuscation.

Obfuscate (http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?book=Dictionary&va=obfuscation)

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>to make obscure
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

If I am wrong the prove to me just exactly what your motive is in posting.

Hop says:

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>I'm interested in discussing the historical aspects of air combat.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Then take your interest and start your own topic.

If you must post in this topic then stick to the topic.

First you completely sidetrack the validity of Shaws declaration which is the basis and begining of this topic.

Then you question the information with no specific cause. Your refutation can apply to any and all documentation equally, leaving no possible room for conclusion.

What exactly is your purpose in this thread, to discuss the historical aspects of air combat? http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

What a joke.

Prove me wrong or start your own thread.

If you want to champion your own cause for the validity of the fourthfightergroups web page and the flight tests presented on that page then by all means do so, I hope you are successful in your endeavor.

My topic has been stated with as much exactness as I am able to compose. It begins with the words of Robert Shaw and his idea that the best way to find relative performance capabilities is through comparative flight testing.

Stick to the topic or start your own topic.

If you have specific information refuting the claims of Eric Brown, W.S. Douglas or his pilots then please refer to those documents or evidence supporting your claim of refutation.

Simply saying that the Farber test documents could be wrong is ludicrous, childish, and completely out of place in this thread.

Then, to go on and replace the supposedly errant information (your assumtion) with your supposed (true) information is in fact your axe being ground, which is exactly what was asked not to be done in this thread.

Again, what is your agenda?

Do you have a real contention concerning the Farber tests or merely baseless conjecture?

Do you have a contention with Shaw's evaluation of the 'best' method of obtaining relative combat performance information or not?

If so what is the reason for your disagreement?

These are "on topic" questions.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>What if they get it wrong in the comparison test? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Seriously, are you really serious, sincere, frank and honest?

Here we have British fighter pilots dropping like flies and the whole RAF in a ****storm when all of a sudden out of the sky comes manna straight from heaven in the form of the RAFs worst nightmare the FW190.

Extensive testing is done enough to inspire the chief honcho of the RAF (who most ceratainly has a vested interest in the truth of the matter but not perhaps as much interest as the British fighter pilots) and he comes up with this outrageous claim that the FW190 is the best all-round fighter in the world?

If I am wrong it is not from serious effort to find reason to consider the possible error, however, this is a big load of ****, in my opinion.

It belongs in your own thread where you can drum up your own interest.

My thread draws a conclusion. It may be an error, however it concludes a possible hypothesis.

What does your response accomplish besides obfuscation?

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>so take your pick which one it's supposed to be. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Play your game in another thread PLease

Pick whatever you want and say whatever you want in your thread. Post any information you deem appropriate to champion your cause, in your own thread.

My concern is accuracy. I have offered a possible, reasonable hypothesis that suggest a direction toward improvement.

If you have a contention with my hypothesis or the information that I have presented the either be specific and on topic or move on.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>We know <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>We have <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>we expected <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I do not know who the "We" is that you refer to but my opinion remains my opinion. I do not claim to know. I guess. I estimate. I put weight in the words documented by people who definitely should know, if anyone on the planet could have known.

JG14_Josf
08-15-2004, 12:51 AM
LEXX_Luthor,

If I remember correctly my contention was and is that software development is not my buisness.

I am interested in the most accurate WWII combat flight sim and I won't know which one it is until I see it. And of course I could be wrong.

As far as acceleration is concerned the matter is relative just like climb, turn, and top speed performance. A little gain is better than none at all and much better than being on the short end.

JG14_Josf
08-15-2004, 01:01 AM
Horseback,

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>perceived performance <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

IL2compare is a good measure as far as my perception goes, but it is not up to date.

What would be a real boon to any combat flight simulation is EM charts complete with lines of constant Ps for specific excess energy (positive and negative) and have the ability to supperimpose these charts with one plane's performance over another.

That would take out a lot of guess work in evaluating the simulated relative performance capabilities.

The real, actual, most representative values to be simulated remain difficult to indentify. I tend to go with the comparative test trials because they actually measure what is the concern i.e. relative performance.

JG14_Josf
08-15-2004, 01:07 AM
Bearcat99,

If the future brings us a more accurate flight sim it will be, in part, because people want it.

Your post suggests to me that we will both choose the same product and enjoy it because it is more accurate.

I too hope that BoB from Oleg is the next most accurate sim. IL2/FB/AEP is a work of talented genius in my opinion. It is art.

JG14_Josf
08-15-2004, 01:14 AM
BfHeFwMe,

Have you tried the dog fighter servers Warclouds, Greatergreen, Virtualpilots or any of the new higher realism settings servers?

I am running a 4.0 K/D ratio currently flying only German planes. Flights are often boring when flying for survival but when it is time to fight I actually get the DTs.

I guess you have to have a knack for finding the fun.

Flying a wing pair or more on voice comms is an exponetial increase in the fun factor.

LEXX_Luthor
08-15-2004, 01:18 AM
Do you have more info on Fw~190 accel? Thanks.

Josf:: <BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>As far as acceleration is concerned the matter is relative just like climb, turn, and top speed performance. A little gain is better than none at all and much better than being on the short end.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

__________________
http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/10.gif Flyable Swedish "Gladiator" listed as J8A ...in Aces Expansion Pack

"You will still have FB , you will lose nothing" ~WUAF_Badsight
"I had actually pre ordered CFS3 and I couldnt wait..." ~Bearcat99
"Gladiator and Falco, elegant weapons of a more civilized age" ~ElAurens
:
"Damn.....Where you did read about Spitfire made from a wood?
Close this book forever and don't open anymore!" ~Oleg_Maddox http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-surprised.gif

karost
08-15-2004, 03:02 AM
Hi,JG14_Josf
very good written posts ....http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

you 'er right that time, RAF was forced onto the tacitcal defensive. As a stopgap, the Spritfire IX was rushed into service.

but in this game there no need to use Spritfire IX right? http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

S!

Xnomad
08-15-2004, 04:31 AM
[Edit]

I removed my own post as from experience it may have been a bit too provocative for the LW bashers on this board.

[This message was edited by Xnomad on Sun August 15 2004 at 03:39 AM.]

hop2002
08-15-2004, 05:56 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Stick to the topic or start your own topic.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I am sticking to the topic.

You have posted data from 1 test.

You expect that data to override all other tests.

Aircraft were individual.

Sometimes they underperform.

Sometimes they arte not representitive of a normal aircraft of their type.

You don't want a debate, you want people to agree with you. If they don't agree with you, you launch personal attacks.

Don't expect Oleg to model aircraft on your performance claims, when you are not even willing to see those claims debated or anylised.

I'll bow out of this thread now, as you are not interested in discussion or futher data, just the stuff that agrees with your already formed opinion.

[This message was edited by hop2002 on Sun August 15 2004 at 06:55 AM.]

JG14_Josf
08-15-2004, 11:47 AM
hop2002,

If you want to debate the information that you have, that forms your opinion of accurate WWII combat simulation; then start your own thread and have at it.

So far the only thing I've seen from you on this topic that get's even close to debate is baseless statements that minimize or question the information I use to present my opinion of accurate WWII combat simulation.

Like this:

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>You have posted data from 1 test.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

That statement is quite simply a lie.

To call it anything but a lie would be to assume that you are ignorant or devious in the extreme.

Then you write this:

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>You expect that data to override all other tests. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Here we have three tools a politician uses to obfuscate an issue, which can hardly be called debate.

One: Lies
Two: The man of straw or straw man (http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary) technique
Three: Hyperbole (http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?book=Dictionary&va=Hyperbole)

Lies are obvious to me and are my observations. I call it as I see it. I have nothing against you personally. My concern is what you write in this topic. You could be 5 different people all posting under the same name and I would say the same thing to each one of you if each one of you write the same load of ****.

The obvious lie is that I have posted data from 1 test. If you look back at my post you will see more than one reference. Which brings us to the Straw Man.

In order for your so called debate to be easy to win it serves your argument to create an opponent that posts data from 1 test. Once that imaginary person is created it then is very easy to throw in your winning argument oozing with the stench of effusive obfuscating hyperbole:

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>You expect that data to override all other tests. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Can you smell the stink?

Who is this imaginary person that expects what exactly, that one test will prove an all convincing argument?
This person does what then: dismisses all other tests as being irrelavant?

What an ingorant fool this person you have constructed is and how convenient it is that you can defeat his argument so easily.

OH but your imagination runs on doesn't it.

You create a new person:

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>You don't want a debate, you want people to agree with you. If they don't agree with you, you launch personal attacks. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

If you have information concerning the "Farber" tests (plural), Shaw's evaluation of the best method to gather relative combat performance information, The Air Chief Marshals opinion of the FW/Spitfire match-up (and his pilots), Eric Browns opinion of the FW/Spitfire match-up, Energy fighting and why it does not work where it should in the game, or any other on-topic subject then we can see if or if not I want to debate it. Until then I must police my thread and weed out the clutter. Hopefully a little weed eater now will keep the unwanted growth from spreading.

Personal attacks would be in the order of something like this:

"Josf, you lie"

If instead the communication goes like this:

"Josf, what you wrote is a lie"

I would be offended by both, however the first would inspire me to defend my person. The second would inspire me to defend what I wrote.

That is how I see personal attacks. That is my opinion. If you actually think I have something against you personally then simply ask me to stop posting to you and I will do so gladly. That does not mean I will stop posting on this board if what you write is, in my opinion, a lie, or any other political type tactic or obfuscation.

Moving on to the last bit of error in your post:

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Don't expect Oleg to model aircraft on your performance claims, when you are not even willing to see those claims debated or anylised.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I am of the opinion that Oleg can and will do the most accurate job that is within possibility. So whomever your warning is directed it does not apply to me.

If you start your own thread on that subject it may help your cause.

I see now that you are bowing out, that is unfortunate if you actually do have something to contribute on the ideas presented in this thread.

For instance, just suppose that the Spitfire VBs that the British used to form their opinions concerning the relative combat capabilities against the FWs in the summer of 1942 were almost exactly as they are modeled in the game IL2. Imagine in other words that the game models these plane accurately and the Farber tests are not accurate.
What then explains the opinion of the Air Chief Marshal and the British fighter pilots, the error in the test results, etc.?

Is it possible that at that time the British simply did not know how to energy fight, that despite the fact that their planes could gain relative energy at a higher rate than the FWs that they (The British fighter pilots) were predisposed to use only angles tactics?

This does not explain the comments in the test results however. Perhaps the British tested the FW a few times and found that the FW was a dog compared to the Spitfires and in an effort to rationalize their inability to fight against the FW they adjusted the BMW motor to perform at a higher power rating that it was capable of performing when tuned by the Germans.

To that; my personal 'Straw man' arguments I offer these two comments:

My straw man argument #1:
British only knew how to angles fight.

Back to Wings of the Luftwaffe by Eric Brown.

"Within six or seven months of its operational debut, the Fw 190 was causing widespread consternation among RAF fighter squadrons based in the south of England. The Tank-designed fighter could out-perform the contemporary Spitfire on every count with the exception of the turning circle - one leading RAF pilot is recorded as having commented acidly when this attribute of his mount was stressed during a pre-operation briefing. "Turning dosen't win battles?". By April 1942, RAF combat attrition on the Channel Front reached prohibitive levels primarily as a result of the activities of its redoubtable German adversary - more than a hundred Spitfires being lost on offensive operations over Occupied Europe during the course of the month - and the Merlin 61-engined Spitfire Mk IX was still two or three months away. But while going a long way towards redressing the balance and even offering an edge in climb and performance above 26,000 feet (7925m)., the Spitifre Mk IX was still to be left standing by the Focke-Wulf's half-roll and dive!"

Notice the exclamation mark. Does IL2/FB/AEP model an advantage to the Focke-Wulf in the form of a half-roll and dive escape maneuver worthy of an exclamation point?

Straw dog argument number 2:
The British were able to get the BMW to perform better than the Germans.

Back to Focke Wulf
by Alfred Price
and the Farber test documents

"Throughout the trials the engine has been running very roughly and as a result pilots flying the aircraft have little confidence in its reliability. The cause of this roughness has not yet been ascertained but it is thought that it may be due to a bad period of vibration at certain engine speeds which may also affect the injection system. [Later it was discovered that the roughness was due to fouling of the Bosch sparking plugs after a short period of running. The fault was cured by fitting Siemens type plugs taken from the BMW 801A engine of a crashed Do 217 bomber.]"

Note: I could not find any information on the number of hours the Farber plane ran during these tests nor what maintenance was performed on it other than what is contained in the above quote. The plane flew enough hours to conduct combat test trials against:
SpitVB
SpitIX
P-51A
P-38F
Typhoon
Griffon Spitfire

On the Griffon Spitfire test the following was recorded:
"The acceleration of the Spitfire proved superior to that of the Fw 190 and its speed appreciably faster."

If anyone can offer real debate on this subject then do so and Hop can be proven right or wrong as to his opinion of my intent.

I suspect that is is going to be very diffucult to find real fault in the argument presented here save for an outright refutation of the Farber experience as a propaganda device constructed by the British government.

One more comment on the Farber tests concerns just how important and useful that plane was at the time it was captured. Keep in mind that the captured FW involved more than one test, more than one person, and after the plane was tested, used up, it changed the course of history. It gave the British valuable information. The same information that is reported in the documents on Ring's web page and a vast amount of personal information shared by the British fighter pilots invovled in the testing. Before the Farber plane the British were 'in the dark' and the Farber plane brought light and I believe hope in their despirate situation.

Wings of the Luftwaffe
by Captain Eric Brown

"It was thus that the RAF acquired Fw 190A-3 Werk-Nr 5313. The depths of its pilot's despair at unwittingly providing his enemies with such a prize may be gauged from the fact that he subsequently attempted suicide, and my compassion for him was certainly to be stimulated some time later, in February 1944, when I very nearly suffered a similar experience while testing a new Typhoon from Farnborough above cloud - although no navigational error was to be involved in my case, my near close-acquantance with a Luftwaffe airfield resulting from deliberate radio direction spoofing by the Germans."

Oberleutnant Arnim Farber not only gave the British valuable comparative performance information in 1942, he gave us valuable comparative performance information. How valuable that information is depends upon each of us. I personally find it to be very valuable because I think it is quite possibly the most credible accurate information available on the FW190s relative performance capabilities during that period of time.

The only place I can find where those documents are questioned for accuracy involve the games that purport to simulate WWII air combat and the players involved in those games.

If there exists contrary information concerning the documents refered to in this post then please bring it on.

JG14_Josf
08-15-2004, 12:07 PM
Lexx_Luthor,

I tried writting somthing last night and lost the post to a windows error that shut down the browser.

I found one very valuable and somewhat relevant bit of information on FW acceleration.

I consider the following information to be very valuable because it comes again from Robert Shaw's book Fighter Combat.

The information is both an anecdotal account written by John Godfrey and, in context...

Let me quote Shaw:

"Actual combat accounts of the successful use of energy tactics are rather rare, but the following example is a beauty. Here John Godfrey's P-51B Mustang has probably 20 percent lower wing loading than the German Focke-Wulf 190D9 opponent, and Godfrey increases his turn advantage further by skill full use of flaps. The focke-Wulf, however, may have 20 percent better power loading. Here are two masters at work:"

From page 163
Figher combat

"...Around and around we went. Sometimes the FW got in close, and other times, when I'd drop my flaps to tighten my turn, I was in a position to fire; but the German, sensing my superior position, kept swinging down in his turn, gaining speed and quickly pulling up, and with the advnatage in height he would then pour down on my tail..."

The whole account is in Fighter Combat and is a very good read. I suggest to anyone interested in Fighter Combat to get the book with that title.

faustnik
08-15-2004, 01:38 PM
Josf,

Great initial post. I take exeption however, to you telling Hop to "start his own thread". This forum is here for discusion not, just statements. If you post has merit, which I think it does, it will stand up to scrutiny.

http://pages.sbcglobal.net/mdegnan/_images/FaustSig
www.7Jg77.com (http://www.7jg77.com) is recruiting
CWoS FB forum. More Cheese, Less Whine. (http://www.acompletewasteofspace.com/forum/viewforum.php?f=31)

zugfuhrer
08-15-2004, 02:50 PM
It is very nice that when someone who writes that some LW-fighters are not up to the standards it got in real life, isnt instantly called whiner, and when someone who refears to old text about this doesnt get the "von oben" comment "sure are thoose old anectdotes nice".
The Faber testings tells the same thing as Jonnie Jonson did. Until the Spit IX arrived, the RAF got big problems with the FW 190. The Spit IX got a two-step compressor and Jonnie was saved by the second step that made it possible for him to climb away from the FW.

I think that the problem with IL2/FB/AEP is that german planes in general and FW in particular is not allowed to get its true strenght, and this makes many player to abandome the game after a while. Not because they like german planes, but there is silly when a IL2 can shoot down 3 AI Hartmanns 10 times out of 10.

I think that Maddox team has given the Mustang very good characteristics in the last patch to make the big american market a reason to buy Pacific Fighters.

I think that if Maddox-team dont give the planes the characteristics that many independent writers and tests gives and instead with the stubborness of an offended says "I know that is wrong but I refuse to do something about this" or writes that "I have secret sources that say...." They are digging the grave of IL2/FB/AEP/PF/BoB and that would be sad.

Let hope for a change so that the FW gets the climb, the cockpit, and other characteristics, as it should have, and that the radiators is included in the damagemodel, the true torque and yaw etc etc.
Than will perhaps more "virtual pilots" come back and more customers will buy the game.

Manos1
08-15-2004, 03:44 PM
Josf,

Thank you for the tremendous work you did matching R.Shaw's work with RAF's comparison test of the FW-190 !

But, above all I would like to thank you for solving a question I was putting to myself for years now. Having read the whole report I found:
http://www.lanpartyworld.com/ww2/images/pro_190_survey_a_1.jpg
------------------------------------------------
Sighting:View
27. The sighting view, when sitting comfortably in the normal position is about a half ring better than that from a Spitfire. The view downards from the centre of the sight graticule to the edge of the reflector plate holder, is about 5 degrees. This view is not obtained by elevating thr guns (and consequently the sight) relative to the line of flight, BUT IS ENTIRELY DUE TO THE ATTITUDE OF THE AIRCRAFT IN FLIGHT, WHICH IS NOSE DOWN. In terms of deflection allowance the view downwards is 160mph. and this enables the pilot to sight and fire at angles of attack as follows:
Target Speed Angle of Attact
200 mph. 60?
300 mph. 40?
400 mph. 25?
------------------------------------------------

As there is a lot of people who got flamed on this, with your persmission, I will set up a different posting regarding this.

Josf, reading your post below, I post it in the Oleg Maddox forum because I feel (out of experience) that a cockpit discussion in this thread would monopolise the readers' interest and therefore substantialy diminish the value of your research in energy vs angles.
The link is "Mr.Maddox, the usual FW190 request" (http://forums.ubi.com/eve/forums?a=tpc&s=400102&f=63110913&m=957107706&r=957107706#957107706) and you are referenced, of course.


~S~

http://www.hellenic-sqn.gr/temp/4th_FG2_new1.gif
Hellenic-SQN (http://www.e-335thgreeksquadron.com)

[This message was edited by Manos1 on Sun August 15 2004 at 04:29 PM.]

JG14_Josf
08-15-2004, 04:00 PM
Faustnik,

I do not expect to be read, listened to, or respected, however my opinions are stated with frank honesty.

One of those opinions is that political tactics rely upon deception and when I think those tactics are being employed by someone I try to expose and ward against them.

If you read my writing (I do not expect that you will have the time) but if you do then expose my error if it is wrong.

Hop tends to obfuscate in my opinion. I have no patience with that type of so called discussion.

I ask that he move that type of discussion somewhere else along with his version of valid source material.

I am trying to keep this thread focused upon a specific concern. If Hop can scrutinize this topics specific stated concerns and ideas then by all means let's hear about it.

If I have missed something valid in what he has written so far then point it out, please.

I tried to address all his writting in this thread and have yet to find someting that doesn't have the stentch of politics and deception, obfusaction, and derision.

There is another thread that does serve to address his concerns about factory test data (I think that is his concern).

It would be nice to get his concerns to be more specific, but not in this thread.

Notice how much energy has already been expended in defense of 'off-topic' stuff.

So far this thread is relatively 'on topic'.

With that in mind:

Zugfuhrer,

Do you have a link to what Jonnie Jonson has said?

Did Jonnie Jonson participate in the Farber comparison testing?

Did he have something to say about relative combat performace between the Spitfires and FWs?

Please provide more information if possible.

JG14_Josf
08-15-2004, 04:09 PM
Manos1,

In fact I consider that to be on-topic. In order to energy fight as Eric Brown amd Robert Shaw point out; deflection shooting is required.

Accuracy includes relative sighting abilities.

Not only does the FW suffer a climbing dissadvantage where evidence suggests it had the advantage, but also the Spitfire had 'half a ring' less gunsighting view according to the Farber documents and in the game the situation is again reversed. The game has an FW that cannot see as good for deflection shooting as does the games Spitfire. Someone posted this condition with very well done overlapping in-game snap shots.

Accuracy suffers in this regard also which is supported by the Farber documentation and this sighting view deficit hinders the tactic of energy fighting. How could you be more on-topic?

Please don't let me diminish your inspiration to post here on the very relative subject you suggest.

You can also start your own topic of course.

Cippacometa
08-15-2004, 05:10 PM
Now let's just pray http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/11.gif that our beloved Oleg http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif reads all this and finally gives us a 2.05 patch with a decent FW.190s!! http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

http://server6.uploadit.org/files/Cippacometa-gaz.jpg

LEXX_Luthor
08-15-2004, 06:32 PM
Thanks for the Quotes there Josf, but I was wondering if Fw~190 acceleration was as good as we advertise. I should ask robban.

__________________
http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/10.gif Flyable Swedish "Gladiator" listed as J8A ...in Aces Expansion Pack

"You will still have FB , you will lose nothing" ~WUAF_Badsight
"I had actually pre ordered CFS3 and I couldnt wait..." ~Bearcat99
"Gladiator and Falco, elegant weapons of a more civilized age" ~ElAurens
:
"Damn.....Where you did read about Spitfire made from a wood?
Close this book forever and don't open anymore!" ~Oleg_Maddox http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-surprised.gif

DangerForward
08-15-2004, 07:32 PM
I guess what I would say about the Faber tests is if the Spit they used was somehow inferior to other Spits of the same class, wouldn't the British know that and redo the test with a better SpitV. The British weren't stupid, these sort of tests were pretty critical to their war effort. In the same vein, if it were almost impossible to overheat the Spit IX on its full power setting, wouldn't the Brits bump up how hard the pilot could drive the engine so in an emergency they could go faster? That's the way most other planes seem to work.

DangerForward

Atomic_Marten
08-15-2004, 08:01 PM
On rare occasion I have the pleasure to open thread like this one. Amazing. No ussual nonsense whining, just a words from someone who actually have a valid ground for his statement.

There is nothing else much to tell, you make it (compile it - thx for effort BTW) crystal-clear. I have left with just one more thought: what if someone like you make this kind of thread for some other A/C (Ta152 -so called "the best of Fw190 family"-, P-51...etc)... http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

Fly sharp http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/93.gif

LEXX_Luthor
08-15-2004, 08:18 PM
Atomic_Marten:: <BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>what if someone like you make this kind of thread for some other A/C<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Wrong Forum http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/52.gif

If the same attention was paid to relative dogfight FMs with all the FB aircraft, for example, G.50 "dive" and "zoom" over CR.42, we would actually be learning about the way Oleg makes his FM. The internet gamers' 100% Pure focus on the traditional Made In USA Combat Flight Sim planes tells me Oleg has the FM pretty much spot on correct for all planes in FB. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/11.gif



__________________
http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/10.gif Flyable Swedish "Gladiator" listed as J8A ...in Aces Expansion Pack

"You will still have FB , you will lose nothing" ~WUAF_Badsight
"I had actually pre ordered CFS3 and I couldnt wait..." ~Bearcat99
"Gladiator and Falco, elegant weapons of a more civilized age" ~ElAurens
:
"Damn.....Where you did read about Spitfire made from a wood?
Close this book forever and don't open anymore!" ~Oleg_Maddox http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-surprised.gif

Bearcat99
08-15-2004, 10:55 PM
This thread is still very much alive and well.. lets keep it that way shall we.... Good stuff Josf...

Some of you others.. if you try to hijack this thread with nationalistic nonsense your posts will be deleted and the thread will be allowed to continue.

http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-indifferent.gifhttp://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/sonar.gif

<UL TYPE=SQUARE>http://www.jodavidsmeyer.com/combat/bookstore/tuskegeebondposter.jpg (http://www.tuskegeeairmen.org)[/list]<UL TYPE=SQUARE>vflyer@comcast.net [/list]<UL TYPE=SQUARE>99thPursuit Squadron IL2 Forgotten Battles (http://www.geocities.com/rt_bearcat)[/list]
UDQMG (http://www.uberdemon.com/index2.html) | HYPERLOBBY (http://hyperfighter.jinak.cz/) | Sturmovik Essentials (http://forums.ubi.com/eve/forums?a=tpc&s=400102&f=23110283&m=51910959) | MUDMOVERS (http://magnum-pc.netfirms.com/mudmovers/index.htm)

IMMERSION BABY!!

JG14_Josf
08-16-2004, 06:01 AM
Thanks for everyone's input so far in this thread. It is really encouraging to find so many people, not only reading, but responding to such lengthly involved discussion. We must share a deep interest in this stuff.

I have read a fair amount of books and it occurs to me that language does not remain static. It moves along. In the American version of English a word commonly used in the past may now be replaced by a different word, yet the meaning is the same. In the past the word "disinterest" was used to describe what is now commonly conveyed with the word "objective".

Objective as opposed to subjective.

Disinterest as opposed to vested interest.

In order to see what I am seeing, what I am going to try to convey, what is required is that the reader becomes subjective, that the reader sheds his vested interest. I propose that in order to see from a particular perspective that is visible to me, someone else will be required to do what I think I have done i.e. stepped back and looked from a distance, as if I were looking from another persons eyes that just happened to be walking on by, someone else who has no interest in this perspective.

Imagine that no flight sim game ever existed.

Imagine that the only thing you ever read about WWII Combat Flight is a comment made by the Air Chief Marshal W.S.Douglas.

The comment was made in a Most Secret letter that Douglas sent to RAF HQ on the 17th of July, 1942.

The Commander in Chief of Fighter Command, Air Cheif Marshal Sir William Sholto Douglas wrote this letter to the Under Secretary of State for Air, Lord Sherwood.

The letter was written to advise the higher ups on the current situation concerning a captured enemy fighter plane that had just been examined 'in the minutest detail'.

The British fighter pilots at the time were concerned about this new fighter, they were being shot down by German figher pilots at a greater rate then had been the case before the introduction of this new fighter plane.

Now here is the comment made by Douglas to Lord Sherwood:

"There is however no doubt in my mind, nor in the minds of my fighter pilots, that the Fw 190 is the best all-round fighter in the world today."

The Air Cheif Marshal used italics for these words:
Fw 190 is the best all-round fighter in the world today

Going back to the exercise that purports to open up the mind, the perspective of a casual disinterest, a third person objective perspective; it is clear that a person armed with this open mind would find this letter to mean something specific.

Perhaps the open mind would think:
"A communication is made from the Air Force military leader (a soldier) to the Royal agent in charge of that branch of the military (Politician?)."

Perhaps the open mind is like mine (it is difficult to be objetive after all) and Royalty is a somewhat foreign concept.

The soldier (this objective perspective may continue) says to the member of the Royal government that the new enemy fighter plane is better than ours.

Fair enough?

Would it be reasonable then to ask, if the Royal representative of the English Monarchy was concerned:
How much better is the new enemy fighter?

Is it likely that the Top Soldier in the English military Air Force would be prepared with an answer for such a question?

Now my question is to any of the readers who have gotten this far:

Answer that question.

How much better is the new German fighter plane than the British fighter plane at that time?

I would use what Douglas probably had for an answer.

I certainly would not use anything I have experienced in the simulation IL2/FB/AEP.

My imagination tells me that if I were the Air Chief Marshal and I answered that question "how much better?" to the Royal government with my experiences in the game all that I could say was:
The German fighter is faster in top speed Sir, and the German Fighter can roll better.

I would add:
We can shoot down those German planes in any situation except when we are surprised. They can only hit us at high speed and then they must run away. They must run very far away indeed before being able to turn around again for another attack.
We must also watch out for their team tactics, again Sir, we can shoot down those German planes in any situation except when we are surprise.

Lord Sherwood might respond at that moment with: "They try to trick you by setting traps with guys that remain out of sight?"

(Galland used this tactic to train new pilots in 109s)

I would say then: "Yes, the dirty bastages"

Lord Sherwood might then say:
"Am I to believe then that top speed and roll makes for the best fighter in the world today?"

dieg777
08-16-2004, 08:06 AM
Josef
Has anyone tried to accuratly replicate the Farber tests and data within the sim?
If someone with the comparable training, experience and objectivity as the original test pilots were to do so then you could produce a valid argument as to the relative performances between the sim and historical aircraft. The data from the sim tests would have to be as accurate and reproducable as possible to make it valid.
Even then I fear there would be arguments as to whether any of the data was statistically relevent to the performance of the type or a mere snapshot. I do not think you will ever produce definative answers to your question, as to how closly the sim matches the reality as expressed in these tests-there are too many variables in both real and virtual worlds to be able to do so and
historical data by its nature cannot be accuratly reproduced in such a manner as to satisfy accurate statistical interpretation as we do not have enough aircraft to gather sufficient data.
As someone who shares your facination with these aircraft it would be an interesting exercise to try to reproduce these tests and also to try to match the E-M curves for these aircraft, however what I make up for in ethusiasm I lack in pilot skill so perhaps someone else could rise to the challenge?

GUNNER
Gunner get a decent signature
Gunner learn to fly
Gunner learn to shoot
Gunner not run out of bullets just as I get on his six

Atomic_Marten
08-16-2004, 08:42 AM
dieg777 has express a really good idea. All those charts that were presented on this forum are providing us correct picture of specific A/C capabilities in real life. Only thing is that they are coming out of test from real life, not a game (IL-2).

So thing is, that we can have those exactly tests done in IL-2. And I can imagine outcome. Of course those tests can (seriously) be done only by dev.team of game itself.

IMO all this wouldn't appear in the first place if this game was not taken seriously by a lot of ppl. And bearing that in mind, we should not return to the stage of flaming each other by presenting some questionable pics or second graded proofs, or what's the worse insulting each other (anyone remember 0.50 histeria?).

Finnaly my suggestion is that if something is suspicious in this game, tests is supposed to be done by game devs. not the players of this game, because of two main reasons:
1.they will be strongly opposed by others without second thought
2.players who undertake tests for himself can came up with wrong results.

Atomic_Marten
08-16-2004, 08:57 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by JG14_Josf:
Now my question is to any of the readers who have gotten this far:

Answer that question.

How much better is the new German fighter plane than the British fighter plane at that time?

I would use what Douglas probably had for an answer.

I certainly would not use anything I have experienced in the simulation IL2/FB/AEP.

My imagination tells me that if I were the Air Chief Marshal and I answered that question "how much better?" to the Royal government with my experiences in the game all that I could say was:
The German fighter is faster in top speed Sir, and the German Fighter can roll better.

I would add:
We can shoot down those German planes in any situation except when we are surprised. They can only hit us at high speed and then they must run away. They must run very far away indeed before being able to turn around again for another attack.
We must also watch out for their team tactics, again Sir, we can shoot down those German planes in any situation except when we are surprise.

Lord Sherwood might respond at that moment with: "They try to trick you by setting traps with guys that remain out of sight?"

(Galland used this tactic to train new pilots in 109s)

I would say then: "Yes, the dirty bastages"

Lord Sherwood might then say:
"Am I to believe then that top speed and roll makes for the best fighter in the world today?"<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

First http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/11.gif. Could not agree more with you.

Fly nice http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/93.gif

JG14_Josf
08-16-2004, 11:21 AM
Dieg777,

I am going to post an introductory serious of links that are not meant to boost my own ego (much) to be precise, the reason I am doing this is to lead into my answer to your post. (a very on-topic well thought out, well written communication in my opinion)
I think it is appropriate to advertize my level of experience within the game so as to legitimized the answer I give toward your posts idea. My answer comes from a certain amount of experience. You will be better armed to judge my level of experience from these links:

The first is (one of many)a series of snap shots taken from on-line dog fight sessions.

http://mysite.verizon.net/res0l0yx/Cut%20the%20corner.jpg
http://mysite.verizon.net/res0l0yx/Looks%20high.jpg
http://mysite.verizon.net/res0l0yx/Just%20a%20little%20late.jpg
http://mysite.verizon.net/res0l0yx/30mm%20love.jpg

Next is a link to some track files.

Mike Chapman's IL2guide web page/ tracks (http://people.ee.ethz.ch/~chapman/il2guide/tracks.htm)

A directly download for my Energy Game training track file is:
Here (http://people.ee.ethz.ch/~chapman/il2guide/downloads/tracks/Energy_game.zip)

That track file can be viewed as a training track and includes written narrative on the screen during the replay of the track. Instructions for loading track files can be found at Mike's IL2 guide web page.

My tutorial on Shaw's sustained turn technique (http://mysite.verizon.net/res0l0yx/sustained%20turn%20technique.htm)

The last link was made by me before the Spitfire's were modeled in the game IL2.

I knew at that time that the Spitfire would be difficult to model in the sim. I posted many times on this board with that warning.
"The Spitfire will be difficult to fit into this Sim"

OK enough of my ego trip, sorry, I do think it is going to help with my credibility in answering your question.

Let me try to summarize what I get from your post and we can then get a little closer to being on the same page.

I think you are saying:

It is important to elimiate as many variables as possible in order to arrive at the best possible judgment of simulated reality. Since WWII Air Combat is being simulated then we must find exactly what is known about Air Combat and reproduce the known factors from historical documentation (the only resource available) in the simulated WWII Air Combat (the game), and we must be precise in this comparision. The only way to get the best possible accurate judgment of how well the game simulates reality is to reproduce as precisely as possible the known conditions documented in history.

How did I do?

Before I wait to get an answer I am going to assume that I did OK.

The short answer is that I think I am qualified to judge how well the game simulates WWII Air Combat. I think I have studied enough information to form an educated opinion.

Furthermore I think it is unwise to get too much into the details when judging the accuracy of relative combat performance. I think it is more important to be able to step back and see the big picture.

For example: Knowing an engine's power output is not knowing how well that plane will gain relative energy when flying against an opponent.

Kowning a engine's power output doesn't even relate precisely to total thrust which is one of many factors that determine how a plane will gain relative energy when fighting against an opponent.

Perhaps a better way to put this is to say that WWII Air Combat is dynamic, fluid, constantly changing and that 'is' the big picture. To be able to percieve with a fluid mind called 'situational awareness' is not only important in Air Combat it is also important in judgment about Air Combat. Knowing the number of feet per minute one plane will climb against another plane under exacting conditions 'is' static by comparison. On the one hand the trees are know to be the exact same color, on the other hand the forest is quite different. Little subtle differences in each tree tend to change the forest into something entirely different than what one would expect when simply adding each tree one by one.

So far I hope I have not lost your interest. I think that I have also confirmed another one of your stated concerns.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>I do not think you will ever produce definative answers to your question, as to how closly the sim matches the reality as expressed in these tests <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

That is the nature of things and in my opinion is a big part in gaining 'situational awareness'.

I hope my thinking is turning into communication.

Let me quote something from the book:
Boyd
by Robert Corram

From Chapter Twenty-Two
The Buttonhook Turn

"In January 1975, the Air Force announced that the YF-16 won the lightweight fighter fly-off. Differences between the YF-16 and the YF-17 were so great that the fly-off had hardly been a contest; the YF-16 was the unanimous choice of pilots who flew both aircraft."
"The results confused Boyd: E-M data and computer modeling predicted a much closer contest. Boyd met with the pilots and they got down to basics. They used their hands to demonstrate combat maneuvers and they used highly technical fighter-pilot terminology such as "****-hot" to describe the YF-16, and it did not take long for a consensus to emerge. They preferred the YF-16 because it could perform what they called a "buttonhook turn." It could flick from one maneuver to another faster than any aircraft they ever flew. It was born to turn and burn - the most nimble little banking and yanking aircraft the world had ever seen. When a pilot was being pursued by an adversary during simulated aerial combat, the ability to snap from one maneuver to another made it much easier to force the adversary to overshoot. It was, as the writer James Fallows later described it, a knife fighter of an airplane, perfect for up-close-and-personal combat."
"Until the YF-16 came along, energy dumping-that is, pulling the aircraft into such a tight turn that it quickly lost airspeed and altitude-was a deseration maneuver. This was the last resort when a pilot could not shake an enemy from his six. He dumped energy and hoped he would get a shot as the crowd went by. But the lightweight fighter had such an extraordinary thrust-to-weight ratio and could recover energy so quickly that energy dumping bcame a tactic of choice rather than of desperation. A piot could dump energy, then pump the stick back and forth as he regained the initiative -"dumping and pumping," it was called."

Note in the above quote that Fighter Pilots know someting that is not written into documents. Even when those documents far exceed anything available from WWII i.e. Robert Shaw's E-M charts.

Fighter Pilots documented their judgment concerning the FW vs Spitfire match-up.

Do you see the value in having figher pilots rather than numbers on a chart making judgments about accuracy?

Of course you do.

One of the most often praises attributed to the FW190 was the "tremendous initial acceleration" and another so called fault of the FW190 was described by Eric Brown as:
"it was extremely vulnerable during a pull-out, recovery having to be quite progressive with care not to kill the speed by "sinking".

I am not going to say that the FW190 did in fact have the same relative advantages that Boyd's fighter pilots found with the F-16 against the F-18, however, there is striking similarities. Dumping is much like "Sinking" and pumping is much like "tremendous initial acceleration". That comparison is not apples to apples so it will remain in my mind as pure conjecture, However, my point is that Fighter Pilots found information that concerns Fighter Combat whereas documents (even the best E-M charts) did not.

[This message was edited by JG14_Josf on Mon August 16 2004 at 10:46 AM.]

dieg777
08-16-2004, 12:52 PM
Josf
You are correct, my suggestions as you thought are to get away from the subjective and to try to prove theories by being objective. If you only use one source such as one series of pilot observations on one aircraft then you limit the data pool and leave your findings open to the cry of statistical error. While pilot observations are valid they are empirical as given in your example- a feel if you like and cannot be quantified. To give a true big picture of an aircraft type you would need a sample of say 100 real pilots flying 100 examples of the real aircraft vs the data from 100 virtual pilots flying 100 examples of the virtual aircraft- all pilots having undergone comparitive training. It is obvious we cannot do so and so need a benchmark in order to test our theory against. The only available is the E_M charts so that should be the startpoint and other data could be factored in.
Again though an interesting debate ( unless Iv bored everyone rigid by bringing in benchmarking and statistics http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/53.gif ) I still think that any data from a single source would be seen as biased, but at least this thread ia attempting to bring some measure to how people think about this sim and not mearly I think plane xxx is better than yyy because I read it somewhere once.

GUNNER
Gunner get a decent signature
Gunner learn to fly
Gunner learn to shoot
Gunner not run out of bullets just as I get on his six

JG14_Josf
08-16-2004, 01:48 PM
Dieg777,

Thanks for the response, it serves to zero in on our exchange toward something specific and common. We are definitely communicating.

Nailing down numbers is one objective measure of WWII Air Combat relative performance capabilities.
I agree that E-M charts (complete with line of constant Ps) are the best possible measurment of combat performance capabilities, and then an ability to superimpose one plane's E-M chart over another plane's E-M chart will show relative ability more clearly than any other possible mathematically represented objective information source.

Having those charts generated by the game engine would eliminate any human error involved in testing in game performance numbers.

I do not agree with the need to average empirical evidence. In fact I see that situation in quite the opposite light. If say one pilot in reality could defeat every other pilot he ever fought then his empirical judgment concerning relative combat performance capabilities would be more valid, more accurate, and more accurate than anyone elses and to average his or her perspective of reality with less valid, less accurate, and less valuable viewpoints would be well...I hope you get the picture.

This exposes the root of my argument concerning what constitues accurate judgement.

I would be much more inclined to use the judgment of Robert Johnson over any other person alive or who has ever lived as to the relative performance of his P-47 (Possibly not representative of all P-47s) against any other plane he faced in the war.

I would not water down his take on the situation with any other information. His judgment is backed up with real apples so to speak. If the idea is to know how well a plane stacked up against another plane (an apple) then it stands to reason that the guy to talk to is the guy who was the best fighter pilot with that plane the genuine apple.

The same goes for the game. My opinion is that the information gained from the guy who beats everyone else with his plane in the game is much more accurate information concerning how well that plane stacks up against other planes than a million guys he can beat.

The only problem left to consider is how much better one pilot is than another. Here is where averages work, in my opinion. Once two of the best pilots are identified they then fight against each other in their planes and then they change planes. After averaging this type of match-up it should soon become obvious who is the better pilot or which plane is the better plane.

If comparative performance capabilities is the apple, the goal, the information desired, the facts to be gathered, then the best source for this information comes from the best, most capable pilots able to utilize the plane.

This is one of my real beefs about test pilots writting numbers down on a piece of paper and then expecting that peice of paper to somehow better represent a planes competitive ability.

Sure those numbers must be found in order to make a computer game. But the proof of the accuracy of the product goes way beyond a set of numbers.

I present the Farber tests not to show off the documents and the numbers found in those documents, that is not my true sense of value found in what those documents record. What actually happened in history, the real dynamic event that played out in the summer of 1942 is eluded to with those documents. A picture, a window into the past is oppened with those documents. What I see looking through that window is exactly what is required to find out just how well an FW190A-3 stacked up against a Spitfire VB. I get into the very planes under scrutiny and fly them side by side to see how they stack up. Numbers are required to document the event, but the opinions of the fighter pilots contain the real value. I put myelf in thier shoes, I give their opinions the benefit of doubt, I assume they know what they are doing based upon the fact that their lives are on the line and that they have even more need for an accurate evaluation than I can ever need.

I posted this earlier:

Wings of the Luftwaffe
by Eric Brown

"Within six or seven months of its operational debut, the Fw190 was causing widespread consternation among RAF fighter squadrons based in the south of England. The Tank-designed fighter could out-perform the contemporary Spitfire on every count with the exception of the turning circle-one leading RAF pilot is recorded as having commented acidly when this attribute of his mount was stressed during a pre-operation briefing. "Turning doesn't win battles!"

Eric Brown was not a leading RAF pilot, his words (although valuable because he actually flew the planes in question) are not what I see as the most valuable accurate assesment of relative combat performance between the FW and the Spitfire in the above quote.

"Turning doesn't win Battles" a comment by a Leading RAF pilot during that time in history is in my opinion a whole lot more information that 4 words or a whole lot of numbers. That comment of 4 words I take as the frustration of a fighter pilot trying to deal with a better airplane. I take that comment as meaning that even a very good angles fighter is going to have a hard time with a better energy fighter.

My opinion is the opinion of a fairly competent combat flight sim pilot.

I may be wrong.

Returning to your take on gathering accurate information I am going to ask:

If a contest was conducted and the top 10 or 100 best Spitfire pilots in the game were found and the top 10 or 100 best FW pilots were found in the IL2 game community. If then these pilots were placed in a competition that best represented the Air Combat situation in the summer of 1942 what would be your opinion of the outcome of that competition?

Would it be similar to what history records?

Luftwaffe Fighter Aces
the jagdflieger and their Combat Tactics and Techniques
by Mike Spick

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>With the Advent of the FW 190A, this was not as critical as it once had been. The Aircraft was a superb dogfighter, and its pilots used it as such. The previous summer, faced with slashing attacks by the 109s, the constant complaint of RAF pilots was that 'Jerry' didn't stay and fight, totally ignoring the fact that in the 109 this was tactically correct. Now they were repaid in spades: in his new FW 190A, 'Jerry' stayed and fought as never before. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

What would the opinions be of the top 10 or 100 Spitfire pilots, and the top FW190 pilots?

Would their opinions be accurate and relavant, more accurate and relavant than yours or mine as to which plane in the game has the advantage?

Do you see my point?

[This message was edited by JG14_Josf on Mon August 16 2004 at 12:57 PM.]

Atomic_Marten
08-16-2004, 03:55 PM
Hmmm.... I have a simple opinion myself of undertaking bechmark of specific A/C. If a rookie pilot sit in one A/C and fly it for a while then land and jump in cockpit of another, even him will notice change between them. That is of course if those differences are more or less of significant nature.

To make it simple to the bones: if you sit in Peugeot 407 then switch to Porsche 911 Carrera you'll notice the change won't you? So same goes with A/C's... http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

And then I will like to go back to Josf words:

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>JG14_Josf: If a contest was conducted and the top 10 or 100 best Spitfire pilots in the game were found and the top 10 or 100 best FW pilots were found in the IL2 game community. If then these pilots were placed in a competition that best represented the Air Combat situation in the summer of 1942 what would be your opinion of the outcome of that competition?

Would it be similar to what history records?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

dieg777
08-16-2004, 05:46 PM
Josef

We will have to disagree slightly - I believe that a representive sample should be used and not just the opinion of the best of the best, but again thats my own opinion. There are statistical methods to iron out the extremes in any sample and I feel that then you would find your answer.

"If a contest was conducted and the top 10 or 100 best Spitfire pilots in the game were found and the top 10 or 100 best FW pilots were found in the IL2 game community. If then these pilots were placed in a competition that best represented the Air Combat situation in the summer of 1942 what would be your opinion of the outcome of that competition?

Would it be similar to what history records? "

This test is the one that I would use to produce the data required for a comparison along with E-M data. I have no opinion to offer on the outcome-My interest is in the question you ask and to try to propose a solution to determine an answer that could be accepted as impartial by anyone with an interest.
Would it be similar to history-who knows but again data would be produced to help substantiate any argument.

Anyway I dont feel that I can contribute more to this but have enjoyed the discussion and if you are ever willing or manage to set up any tests using FB please let me know the outcome.

OT-One last question - I had already used your energy management track as a guide to clear some points up and was wondering if you had done something similar with deflection shooting using LW sights ?

GUNNER
Gunner get a decent signature
Gunner learn to fly
Gunner learn to shoot
Gunner not run out of bullets just as I get on his six

JG14_Josf
08-16-2004, 07:23 PM
Dieg777,

Rgr on statistics. I understand. As the saying goes 'garbage in - garbage out' so it is with statistics in reverse.
The answer can be found with statistics to a very high percentage of probability with a remarkably small representative sample.
The key is in getting that representative sample to represent what it pruports to sample i.e. no garbage in.

Thanks for the effort. I don't have any track files on gunnery.

I can leave you with a few helpful tips (helpful to me once I realized them)

1. Fly the plane as if it were the bullets, fly intersecting trajectories (this is the most valuable idea) then of course avoid the collision.

2. The gunsight works. Shoot when the fighter is wing tip to wing tip inside the circle when possible. I think that range is 100 meters for a 10 meter wingspan plane.

3. Shoot only when you know the shots will hit the target (this is a self maintaining loop)

4. Shoot short bursts. It is not likely that the target is going to stay lined up for long so there is no need to waste ammo, and therefore if you shoot at the right time (see tip number 3) then you will need to line back up for another shot anyway.