PDA

View Full Version : Why pilots quotes are not reliable



mynameisroland
10-12-2005, 08:50 AM
The Focke-Wulf 190 certainly gave the British a shock. 1941 had ended with the Me 109 with the Spitfire (two cannons and four machine-guns fighting it out on fairly even terms. Then, without warning from British intelligence sources, this startling aeroplane appeared in March 1942. A radial-engineered fighter, it out-climbed and out-dived the Spitfire. Now for the first time the Germans were out-flying our pilots. Instantly Rolls and Supermarine retaliated with the Spitfire IXa which equalled the 190, followed at the spring of 1942 with the IXa which equalled the 190, followed at the end of 1942 with the IXb which outflew it in all respects. The Spitfire was unchallenged for the rest of the war, except in the last few months by the Messerschmitt 262 jet which arrived too late to make a significant contribution.


Douglas Bader taken from his Autobiography.

Now this quote is his opinion it bears no truth to actual hard facts. For starters Douglas Bader was shot down and captured in the 9th of August 41. Therefore he must have been a phsycic to actually know how the spitfire IXb reigned supreme for the rest of the war.

The problem with pilots memoirs is that they are all based on emotion and hardly ever contain any factual information. Perhaps Bader in a Spitfire IX was better than an average Fw 190 pilot, but to say that the Spitfire IX was superior to the Fw 190 A5/6/8 then D9 ect is plain wrong yet there is a generation out there of enthusiasts who have read Baders autobiography and have their views fixed.

This is why if there is a discussion about aircraft performance someone producing a pilot quote doesnt mean too much.

Bearcat99
10-12-2005, 09:22 AM
Originally posted by mynameisroland:
The Focke-Wulf 190 certainly gave the British a shock. 1941 had ended with the Me 109 with the Spitfire (two cannons and four machine-guns fighting it out on fairly even terms. Then, without warning from British intelligence sources, this startling aeroplane appeared in March 1942. A radial-engineered fighter, it out-climbed and out-dived the Spitfire. Now for the first time the Germans were out-flying our pilots. Instantly Rolls and Supermarine retaliated with the Spitfire IXa which equalled the 190, followed at the spring of 1942 with the IXa which equalled the 190, followed at the end of 1942 with the IXb which outflew it in all respects. The Spitfire was unchallenged for the rest of the war, except in the last few months by the Messerschmitt 262 jet which arrived too late to make a significant contribution.


Douglas Bader taken from his Autobiography.

Now this quote is his opinion it bears no truth to actual hard facts. [i]For starters Douglas Bader was shot down and captured in the 9th of August 41. Therefore he must have been a phsycic to actually know how the spitfire IXb reigned supreme for the rest of the war[/b].

The problem with pilots memoirs is that they are all based on emotion and hardly ever contain any factual information. Perhaps Bader in a Spitfire IX was better than an average Fw 190 pilot, but to say that the Spitfire IX was superior to the Fw 190 A5/6/8 then D9 ect is plain wrong yet there is a generation out there of enthusiasts who have read Baders autobiography and have their views fixed.

This is why if there is a discussion about aircraft performance someone producing a pilot quote doesnt mean too much.

Consider that A)Bader died in 1982 at the age of 72. No psychic powers needed there... it seems he was writing in the past tense so.....

Also consider:

Type: Spitfire Mk. IX
Function: fighter
Year: 1942 Crew: 1 Engines: 1 * 1565hp R.R. Merlin 61
Wing Span: 11.23m Length: 9.47m Height: 3.86m Wing Area: 22.48m2
Empty Weight: 2556kg Max.Weight: 4309kg
Speed: 656km/h Ceiling: 13400m Range: 700km
Armament: 2*g20mm 4*mg7.7mm

Type: Fw 190A-3
Function: fighter
Year: 1942 Crew: 1 Engines: 1 * 1250kW BMW 801D-2
Speed: 636km/h Ceiling: 11300m Range: 800km
Armament: 2*mg7.9mm 4*g20mm

I dont know what the breakdown of where which plane was at which time.... but as far as these to and these atats go.... except for range goes..... but you are correct to some extent ... pilot accounts arent always 100%reliable.... but to totally dispell them would be a mistake.

mynameisroland
10-12-2005, 09:46 AM
Think the Biography was written 1972. The statistics you show serve to misrepresent the argument. The Spitfire IXb fought against the Fw A4 / A5 onwards for the most part. The A2/3 mainly fought against the Spitfire Vb. Just because the RAF tested the Fw A3 against the Spit IXb did not mean that the Luftwaffe was flying that version, the Fw 190 as Im sure you know was progressively upgraded/boosted increased ect.

What the point is IMO is that Bader's memoirs are , understandably , very patriotic. Therefore he misleads the reader in to thinking the Spitfire/RAF pilots/ Britain was superior to 'Nazi' Germany generally. He is generalising on a subject that he felt strongly about. There is little or no evidnece to support his statement.

Bader talked of a period where the Spitfire IXb reigned supreme... how the hell would he know ? He was sitting in a prisoner of war camp.

cygfrain
10-12-2005, 10:24 AM
It might be worth remembering that Bader was a close friend of Johnny E Johnson (who viewed him as spmething of a mentor). Johnson had extensive experience of the Spitfire series throughout the war and was responsible for a number of books, autobiographical, historical and academic in nature.

It seems reasonable to suppose that Bader and Johnson compared notes often.

Skycat_2
10-12-2005, 10:26 AM
Veterans often remain interested in their branch of service many years after they leave the military. Some see their experience as their glory years, others need to make sense of the war, etc. Generally all are proud of what they accomplished.

I don't think it is unreasonable to assume that Bader talked to many former RAF pilots after the war, if only as 'buddy talk.' Additionally, since he was a combat pilot himself I'm sure he was academically interested in the machines of war -- both these conditions could be satisfied in a LuftStalag if downed pilots were constantly being rotated in and could discuss the current state of the war with Bader.

Just my thoughts.

faustnik
10-12-2005, 10:55 AM
Well, the statement "followed at the end of 1942 with the IXb which outflew it in all respects" is not even supported by RAF testing. The Fw190 and Spitfire remained competitive with each other throughout the war.

The problem with pilot quotes are that there is always another pilot quote to counter it. Read the "Report of the Joint Fighter Conference, Oct. 1944". Pilots from the same country flying the exact same aircraft can't agree on anything.

WWSensei
10-12-2005, 11:17 AM
The problem isn't really pilot's accounts being unreliable but people's extrapolations of those accounts.

If an aircraft A driver stated that his aircraft, during an engagement with an enemy aircraft B, "outclassed him in all respects" you don't get get is the real data. Someone interprets that to mean that "A always is better than B regardless of speed, altitude, pilot skill, weather conditions" etc. When really A might be better than B at a certain altitude and speed or weather condition etc.

RAF74_Poker
10-12-2005, 11:25 AM
Methinks the Lufties are prepositioning arguements for the next patch. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Sneaky buggers !

jds1978
10-12-2005, 11:27 AM
what we're really talking about is post-modernism. ie: the idea that there is no one fixed reality. instead reality is colored by every individuals perception, mental processes, experience etc. so, since the planet is populated by 5 billion plus people, there are 5 billion plus versions of reality.

anarchy52
10-12-2005, 11:44 AM
After reading J. Johnson's book I was under the impression that He himself won the war for the allies single handed. Fearless, always superior, always confident...he wrote a comic book a Hollywood movie scenario, he didn't write how it really felt being there. On the other hand there is that stereotype about the English being cold and emotionless people http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif.

I Liked Closterman's book much better. Currently I'm reading Galland's book.

Kuna15
10-12-2005, 12:12 PM
I like to read pilot accounts. But I can't remember that I have found some exact data from their accounts which differ from tachnical data.
What I am trying to say, they usually say "our fighter x was superior to enemy fighter y" (just like WWSensei said) which isn't far from truth since almost all contemporary fighters were competitive and better than oppo in some areas but not all, usually.

Anyway many guys from this forum have really good experience and knowledge (especially after reading few books about subject) about ww2 aircraft so they can 'filter' the stuff they read anyway. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Dunkelgrun
10-12-2005, 12:21 PM
Originally posted by jds1978:
what we're really talking about is post-modernism. ie: the idea that there is no one fixed reality. instead reality is colored by every individuals perception, mental processes, experience etc. so, since the planet is populated by 5 billion plus people, there are 5 billion plus versions of reality.


Five billion plus +1. You forgot about me! http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

Cheers!

ytareh
10-12-2005, 12:41 PM
Just finished reading ROBERT Johnsons book 'Thunderbolt'-he was a leading WW2 ace in the same plane.He gives the impression that the P47 and FW190 diving abilities were about relative to a rock and a feather!I lost count of the number of times he blew up(and he did mean exploded in pieces!) FWs pursuing them in dives -He always said 'They never learn-you cant outdive a P47'.He refers to an improved FW290 near the wars end which I suppose was the D9 or maybe even Ta152.He also reports that after a new 'paddle' prop was fitted the P47 outclimbed the Spit IX too.Also reading Pappy Boyingtons "Black Sheep" book.Both of these were written fairly soon after the war,long before 'political correctness'-these guys were mens men in the traditional sense-both stories are quite Gung Ho and you can sense that the japanese and germans were far from forgiven friends....A stark contrast with Flyboys -a compulsive read in a much more modern tone-although believe me while there is more of a sense of reconciliation in it this is one of the most graphic books I have ever read-graphic reference reference to cannibalism etc.

p1ngu666
10-12-2005, 01:21 PM
ya
other crew members accounts are also interesting. like the navigator who a20 (glassnose) b25 and mossie FBVI for raf.

the american planes where more spacious, had alot of equipment aswell, not that always got the equipment, some guys in maintenace centres removed items not on the list http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif

and there was only one way in and out of a mossie (apart from escape via canopy), there was less room for stuff, and when they fired the cannons (the pilot liked doing that) the cockpit filled with smoke abit (not much), and vibrated.
pilot liked those 4 20mm hispanos http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/59.gif

he was incedently shot down on his first b25 op, and before that his rear gunner in a a20 took a headshot... from a 40mm AA http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-sad.gif

rnzoli
10-12-2005, 02:28 PM
Originally posted by jds1978:
there are 5 billion plus versions of reality.
Nope, I disagree. There is only one reality. But with 5 billion (+ 1) different perceptions.

NorrisMcWhirter
10-12-2005, 02:54 PM
Any account of a happening is subjective..and relates to personal experience only. So, with that in mind, you can hardly take as an absolute absolute something that your 'friend' told you (i.e. Mr Johnson).

Take Andy McNab, for instance. Lots of success selling books about his SAS activities but he also was criticised heavily by ex/serving SAS personnel regarding the accuracy of his 'accounts'

As rightly pointed out, people will pick and choose from pilot accounts so as to validate their own perceptions. Clostermann is a fine example; just because he criticises a particular group in particular, people (on this board) have passed his experiences off as being incorrect.

Me? I take them with a pinch of salt. If you asked me what happened in a dogfight last week, I probably couldn't remember it very well at all. Add to the mix that I was in fear of my life at the time then I think I'd recall precise details even less. Never mind there being weeks/months/years in between me experiencing and documenting those events.

Then, of course, you have people taking pilot accounts of an action being successful as 'how it should be'; these people forget that for every pilot that managed to pull it off, there may one, in the same situation, who didn't. Take the P38 movie recently - there may be many pilots who have managed a low alt roll quite successfully and who can vouch for the P38s control in this regard. There are also some, unfortunately, that cannot present their accounts.

Ta,
Norris

ARCHIE_CALVERT
10-12-2005, 04:02 PM
What ever you think of Douglas Bader he was, without his legs more suited to being a Fighter Combat Pilot than most other able bodied men... http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/blink.gif The loss of his legs made him less prone to the effect of heavy G's, it gave him in affect a pressurized blood system. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-surprised.gif Because it had less space to go it ran at a greater pressure than normal. Therefore he had the luxury of more oxygenated blood getting to his brain when pulling high G maneuvers€¦ http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif There€s not many times a loss of one legs awards one with a winning advantage... http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

OD_79
10-12-2005, 04:26 PM
I believe your statement to be very questionable. I think we can safely say he has a more valid opinion than you do on the subject. He has flown the Spitfire, and he flew it against some of the best German pilots of the war, he flew it as the Mk I Mk V and as the Mk IX. The fact that both aircraft were both continously updated an improved throughout the war would say that the Spitfire was still one of the best aircraft in the sky at the end of the war, as it was at the beginning. It could compete with all models of the 190 on at least level terms, if not favourable, it could waste 109's by the end of the war. It was adapted to fulfil more and more roles with heavier and heavier armament.
Now if Bader was saying that the Spitfire could go supsersonic with ease and turn within its own length I would say his account was unreliable. The fact is with a pilot of his calibre at the controls a Spitfire is a deadly weapon and probably was the best aircraft of the war for pure dogfighting.
Now if you had said that these memoirs are written a long period after the event and based on memory then true you could say that they were unreliable. Biased as they would be by potentially warped memories and conflicting stories and information, plus they are writing with the benefit of hindsight. But then a lot of them did keep a diary of some kind as well so they have something to work from.
Personally I am far more inclined to believe Bader than any of the extremely biased opinions seen here on these forums on a regular basis like "why is my P-51 not as good as my books say it was?" type arguments. The fact that people just aren't flying it properly and are trying to do things with it that it was not able to do anyway is besides the point. Then we get people come out with graphs and aparently historical documents saying one thing, but then someone else produces something arguing the opposite. Fact is none of you (or at least very few if any) have flown an FW190 or a BF109 or a Spitfire, P-47, P-51 or whatever so what do you have to base it on?
Bader deserves a little more respect than you have given him in this thread as he has done these things, he was a highly accomplished combat pilot. Put simply you aren't.
Remember that this (IL2) is only a simulator it's not reality while it may be the best out there at the moment to reflect reality, it is just that a reflection and not 100% accurate, I doubt that anyone would argue that it is, but some people seem to take whatever comes out of IL2 as gospel.
I must say some of the flying charactersistics, from my own flying experience, are a bit dodgy the prime suspect being stalling. I've flown a few aircraft and if they stalled like they do in the game then there wouldn't be many left!
Anyway that's getting off topic. I just believe that these pilots deserve a bit more credibility than you have made out. I may have gone a bit long and I don't intend to have caused any offence if I have. Just take my post as an objective view of what you have said.

OD.

Grey_Mouser67
10-12-2005, 04:50 PM
Originally posted by ytareh:
Just finished reading ROBERT Johnsons book 'Thunderbolt'-he was a leading WW2 ace in the same plane.He gives the impression that the P47 and FW190 diving abilities were about relative to a rock and a feather!I lost count of the number of times he blew up(and he did mean exploded in pieces!) FWs pursuing them in dives -He always said 'They never learn-you cant outdive a P47'.He refers to an improved FW290 near the wars end which I suppose was the D9 or maybe even Ta152.He also reports that after a new 'paddle' prop was fitted the P47 outclimbed the Spit IX too.Also reading Pappy Boyingtons "Black Sheep" book.Both of these were written fairly soon after the war,long before 'political correctness'-these guys were mens men in the traditional sense-both stories are quite Gung Ho and you can sense that the japanese and germans were far from forgiven friends....A stark contrast with Flyboys -a compulsive read in a much more modern tone-although believe me while there is more of a sense of reconciliation in it this is one of the most graphic books I have ever read-graphic reference reference to cannibalism etc.

IF you want to see how Oleg thinks about the diving abilities of the Fw vs the P-47, try this: Go to the pacific map at 3000 meters with full fuel and default weapons...in QMB airstart and chop the engine, turn to the left and point to a spot on the little moon shaped island in order to hold your dive angle.fly till it crashes and record the TAS...now try a Fw of any type and then a P-47 of any type....this is without engine so I suspect it is a reflection of drag and E retention more than anything...try it...you will be unpleasantly suprised...then try a Hellcat and it will get worse...now I know why the Hellcat is such a dog in this game...it is one of the worst.

I thought about posting the results, because I've tested many aircraft...it is shocking but I'm not sure what elements of the game are represented...if you dive, power on, the numbers get closer....

There is an issue with the way the Fw is modelled no doubt based on this test...I'm just not sure what variables are modelled here...I just know that the Fw was not the best diving aircraft of WWII.

arcadeace
10-12-2005, 05:05 PM
Whatever bias there may be with WWII pilots€ accounts... their perceptions and emotions are still based on raw experience and genuine conviction. They are much more credible to me than members in this forum €˜flying€ a crude 2D simulation, reading accounts and data, giving their opinions pro or con, on the men and their machines. Underlying much of this is a need to be an expert of sorts countering any perceived unfairness detracting from the simple pleasure to enjoy a great piece of software.

danjama
10-12-2005, 05:09 PM
i think its quite disrespectful to discredit pilots accounts and what not. I wasnt gonna say nothing but i had to.... http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/51.gif

faelas
10-12-2005, 05:10 PM
I think 3 things about this:

1. In general, disagreeing with a vet who has "been there" in favor of book-learned data is foolish.

2. Vets do in fact tend to remember their experiences though rose colored lenses. As time passes this gets worse unless there is something in the man's life to keep his perception of reality in check. Remaining in military service after war serves two purposes in this regard: it keeps a man fairly humble, and it encourages him to be acurate in his recolections. Becoming a civilian and writing your accounts of war many years later tends to have the oposite effect in my opinion.

3. Disagreeing with a verteran about some facts of his war is not necessarily disrespectful. Men like Douglas Bader went to war so that you and I have the right to disagree with him, and while I think he would be somewhat purturbed by your interpretation, I doubt he would be angry at you for disagreeing with him and I doubt he would find it disrespectful.

Carry on.

geetarman
10-12-2005, 05:27 PM
Well, if the game is any proof, any FW-190 far outclasses a Spit IX over 330mph. The Spit feels like it's in cement at those speeds compared to the FW

blakduk
10-12-2005, 06:34 PM
Pilot quotes are not reliable for many reasons, but that doesnt mean they are not valid. Bader was an accomplished combat pilot but he was not an unbiased commentator- from contemporary accounts of the man he was most certainly a believer in the superiority of certain classes of British society and of British ingenuity/engineering.
A good example of how unreliable pilot accounts are is the inflated 'kill' figures ALL sides of the air battles of WW2 were guilty of. However, they did fly their machines beyond the limits of what designers considered possible and i've seen photos of aircraft that returned with battle damage that make it appear aerodyamically impossible for them to have remained airborne.
As with all eye-witness accounts of events, they may not be 100% accurate but they are still valuable evidence for what really happened.

Toten_Waffe
10-12-2005, 07:17 PM
You know the only way to solve arguments about whats a better aircraft of WW2??? What we need is a pack of "TOP TRUMPS".....yeahhhhhh

FW-190/a6 - speed 7
- fire power 8
- range 5
- roll rate (better than a P-47)

and so on and so on..........this is by far the most historically accurate way of comparing planes. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/59.gif

Grey_Mouser67
10-12-2005, 07:34 PM
Adreniline imprints memories on the brain like a chisel in stone...it is how we remember what is important to us....good memories become warmer and fuzzier over time...hence the "good ole times". This too is a survival mechanism triggered by hormones. And of course there is the "fog of war" which refers to a sensory overload which renders a person disoriented and confused...there will be no pilot accounts from individuals in this state of mind, I'm sure.

Biologically speaking, I'd expect a pilot to remember with excruciating clarity moments of fear and terror for the rest of their lives....now I also think that sometimes those memories can be false, but they are sharp...make no mistake about it!

Pilot accounts should be taken for what they are and the context should be examined. They are founded by real life things that occurred and were perceived, however the overall accuracy of the situation, energy states, tactical situation etc are not necessarily known or understood.

Pilot accounts should be used as indicators and back up, especially for the more subjective types of information. Everything they will be talking about will be relative to the aircraft that they know best too...they are indicators to be considered and understood, but they don't tell which plane flew fastest at x feet and y #'s of boost etc...but the "stable gun platform" comments, the "effective weapons", "nasty stall habits" etc have validity if one understands the perspective and context with which those comments are made....kinda like examining statistics...in order to trust and fully understand them, you must know the math and know the assumptions...otherwise they are misleading and innaccurate.

IL2-chuter
10-12-2005, 08:05 PM
It's the rare combat pilot who encounters a superior enemy and lives to make a sweeping generality about combat years later. One could make a case that most successful and surviving pilots never quite met their match in the whole of their combat careers.

As for memory, I'll watch a race, F1 maybe, and then listen to a driver describe different events during the race in a post race interview in intense detail sometimes. Having just watched the race from the comfort of my couch, I can usually remember them in more general terms myself.


And the "Fw290" mentioned earlier? Wow, what the hell? The number 290 was allocated to Junkers so it couldn't be a 290. Maybe it was a wartime Allied Intelligence assumed designation that in reality was a 152 or 153?

As far as Pilot's recollections in general, thank god for our forum here. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

p1ngu666
10-12-2005, 09:14 PM
i really enjoy readin the stuff pilots or crew have written.

what they do really well often is put across what its like to fly, and the emotions, conditions etc..

also, british tend(ed) to understate for effect, while americans overstated for effect.

if u read a whole range of stuff u should get a balanced view.. or if your like some, belive only the best about whatever your favourite plane,and not the bad...

in terms of what ive read, the mossie seems to come out the best. 109 is odd, vers from omg its teh best thing evar. EVAR. to omg, it was so bad it could hardly fly http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

TX-Gunslinger
10-12-2005, 11:51 PM
S~

Sir Douglas Bader, DSO,DFC:

Incredible pilot, human being, fighter leader, national hero and visionary.

Combat flying time Spitfire MkIX (any type) = 0 hours
Combat time vs FW-190 (any type) = 0 hours
It is also of note that Sir Douglas possesed combat time against Bf-109E's and early F series opponents. Significantly different aircraft than 190's. As different an aircraft as the Tempest compared to the Spitfire.

It would not be disrespectful and perhaps even prudent to examine Sir Douglas's statements within the context of his experience. Since he had no experience in either of aircraft in question, I don't think he'd mind greatly if we took his statement with a "grain of salt".

I believe that pilot quotes are invaluable in understanding relative aircraft performance, to the degree that the reader is able to contextually qualify the pilots remarks.

So for example, compare the following two books:

"Wolfpack Warriors: The Story of World War II€s Most Successful Fighter Outfit" by Roger Freeman

"Thunderbolt!: The P-47" or "Thunderbolt!An Extraordinary Story of a World War II Ace" By Martin Caidin and Robert Johnson. Same book different publishers, different marketing. Remember that RSJ did'nt write this book. Martin Caidin was the writer.

If you actually read, cross reference and compare these books you'll get two different views on Robert Johnson. Most importantly you'll find significant disagreement between Bob Johnson's and Gerald Johnson's view of the famous "21 20mm and MORE THAN 200 7.92mm holes in my P-47" story that Martin Caiden writes about in "Thunderbolt!".

The Martin Caidin story and the story Robert S Johnson told the wartime press after he returned from this mission, is put into question by actual photographs of Robert Johnsons damaged aircraft after the story. Further enlightment can be had by reading Gerald Johnson's (Robert's S. Johnsons Flight Leader) account of the incident. The slight exaggerations that RSJ put to the story, still resonate today, concerning expectations of simulated aircraft performance.

I won't rehash it here, but this is an old link to the topic.

http://forums.ubi.com/eve/forums/a/tpc/f/23110283/m...201038113#5201038113 (http://forums.ubi.com/eve/forums/a/tpc/f/23110283/m/8691092113/r/5201038113#5201038113)

Bottom line:

For my own understanding, pilot accounts are invaluable when taken in context and when cross-checked against other accounts and available information. It's also a good idea to research the authors, at least to find out the nature of their work. Unfortunatley, this is'nt often the case with material presented on internet forums http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

noace
10-13-2005, 02:45 AM
Hallo!

Sort of double standard applied here. Maybe some will remember the P38 threads we had not to long ago. In there Galland saying that the P38 was an easy opponent was hardly critisized as he never really flew against them. Accoring to arguments in this thread it should have been enough for him talking to his pilots. And as the resonsible person for the figther arm he definitely did, he even had to as it was his job.

Anyway, pilot accounts are nice to read and if you get a big enough sample you may even get averaged some "true" information out. Just do not rely on single accounts (i.e. I have read somewhere from a former 190d9 pilot that the machine could be accelerated to 300km/h at sealevel and then climbed to 3000m at a 45 deg angle without loosing speed. Gives around 58 m/s vertical climb, pls Oleg ... http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif )

noace

ploughman
10-13-2005, 05:44 AM
I'm a little confused. Are we saying a pilot, a combat leader, a tactician, a Wing Commander, is disqualified from having an opinion that isn't based on first hand experience? Well if he can't have one, no one else can.

WWSensei
10-13-2005, 07:26 AM
Originally posted by Ploughman:
I'm a little confused. Are we saying a pilot, a combat leader, a tactician, a Wing Commander, is disqualified from having an opinion that isn't based on first hand experience? Well if he can't have one, no one else can.

I don't think that's what is being said. As I tried to say earlier, pilot accounts do count it is just that some people take a general pilot comment and try to use it as proof for a specific behavior (or worse a whole class of behaviors).

An anecdotal example if you will: I was in the O'club and listening to some of my fellow pilots (F4 drivers) talk about a mock engagement with F-14s. There was lots of chatter about dominating the fight and how they totally hosed the Tomcats etc. If I had asked them at the time if the F4 was better than the Tomcat ego alone would have dictated a "hell yeah" answer.

Then I sat down to talk to the flight lead...a former test pilot. He starts rattling off the altitudes, speeds, G-loads and tactics they used. He was fairly specific about thing like "at 400 knots in a 4g bank traversing 15 degrees of arc per second, and with a 5 AOA I could hold my turn 2 seconds longer than the Tomcat unless he changed wing geometry. That gave me a 1 and half second WEZ to get a shot."

Guess who I would tend to use if I were writing code?

The thing is when you are writing computer code you have to have specifics...you just can't code concepts or generalities. Nor can you take generalities and hard code them to exist for every scenario.

According to some of the people who complain about a sim I should take the accounts of the war story telling pilots and write a sim where the F4 will defeat a Tomcat under any condition.

A smart developer takes the second pilot's input of performance and inputs that and ignores the first set of pilots.

Lastly, relying on historical outcomes based on flight models of aircraft completly discounts the abilities of the pilots and their choice of tactics. My first thought when I heard the first group of pilots talking was "they flew their F4s better than the other guys flew their Tomcats" not that an F4 was better than an F-14.

If flight model was all that mattered, or hell, if mattered by 15% you wouldn't need to actually fight...just mail each other the EC charts and that would determine the winner.

TgD Thunderbolt56
10-13-2005, 07:48 AM
Originally posted by Ploughman:
I'm a little confused. Are we saying a pilot, a combat leader, a tactician, a Wing Commander, is disqualified from having an opinion that isn't based on first hand experience? Well if he can't have one, no one else can.

I don't think that's the intent of these posts at all, rather, if we use a simple fact of "overclaims" by many of the pilots in all theaters from both sides, it shows that they truly believed something to be true that facts couldn't support. While there was some truth in their statements, they were obviously biased and in many cases inaccurate.

Food for thought.



TB

Bremspropeller
10-13-2005, 11:27 AM
Pilot accounts are alwas subjective.

Imagine you're driving two different types of cars and have to sum up their performance in relation to each other.

You'll definately be influenced by the car you like better from the start.

A different driver who likes the other car will give you another summary which let's his preferred car come out on top.

It's like "Porsche vs. Ferrari", "Mercedes vs. BMW" or "Viper vs. Corvette".

ploughman
10-13-2005, 12:29 PM
quote:
Originally posted by Ploughman:
I'm a little confused. Are we saying a pilot, a combat leader, a tactician, a Wing Commander, is disqualified from having an opinion that isn't based on first hand experience? Well if he can't have one, no one else can.



I don't think that's the intent of these posts at all, rather, if we use a simple fact of "overclaims" by many of the pilots in all theaters from both sides, it shows that they truly believed something to be true that facts couldn't support. While there was some truth in their statements, they were obviously biased and in many cases inaccurate.

Food for thought.


Well, I agree with you. Even when combatants are trying to be objective they're often wildly inacurrate. Bob Tuck used the example of a falling 109, as it fell from high altitude 2 different aircraft had another pop at it at diferrent times and all three claimed it as a kill, and each one of them was right as far as they knew. During the Falklands War Rapier missile crews claimed 21 kills, subsequent investigations showed they actually acheived 1.

I think the example the original poster used was unfortunate as it was taken from a set of memoires and had to do with Bader's opinion on something he patently had no direct experience of. As such, it was hardly a 'pilot's report' in the sense of a mission debrief or after action report but was rather the considered opinion of an aviation expert writing after the events in question. For the poster to assert that Bader having an opinion on the relative merits of Fw-190s v Spit Mk IXs is demonstrative of the inaccuracy of pilot's reports because he was banged up in Colditz at the time the two types were mingling is pretty weak reasoning if you ask me. Whether or not you agree with Bader's opinion, is another thing.

A more pertintent example might've been the disparity between Bader's account of his collision with a 109 and subsequent capture, and of the Luftwaffe's version, which is represented in Galland's memoirs, of the same incident.

mynameisroland
10-13-2005, 01:10 PM
Originally posted by Ploughman:
I'm a little confused. Are we saying a pilot, a combat leader, a tactician, a Wing Commander, is disqualified from having an opinion that isn't based on first hand experience? Well if he can't have one, no one else can.

Id like a pilot, a combat leader, a tactition, a Wingcommander to maybe have some actual experience of the Fw 190 or the spitfire IX before he sums up 4 years of aerial warfare between the RAF and Luftwaffe in one dismissive phrase.

ViktorViktor
10-13-2005, 01:21 PM
By the way, has anybody flying IL2 tried to write a mission debrief after each mission, and then watched the track/film of what actually happened the next day ? Try it for awhile.

I do this regularly with my off-line campaigns, and it's amazing how wrong some of my 'combat report' statements can be sometimes.

I'd have to say that in the 1st 100 combats I was in (that is, the 1st 100 IL2 missions I ever flew), I got about only about 50% of the facts correct.

I'm guessing that alot of WWII fighter pilots were like me with IL2. Of course, there were some fellas with nerves of steel of and a photographic memory, who later went on to write a book. But I have to believe that the great majority of detailed dogfights we read about today are 50% hot air.

Monty_Thrud
10-13-2005, 01:52 PM
This has got to be a fishing trip..

Then Roland..just read your Lufty fighter aces books and dont stray outside your "The LW were perfect" world..and as for how did Bader know about how competative these fighters were..take a guess..could be he spoke to new prisoners at the camps, kept himself up to date with the progress, instead of the propaganda the Germans would be feeding everyone...possibly after the war he would meet fighter pilots from all sides and discuss this very point.

And yes fighter pilots accounts are important, especially as there is not sufficient test data for all the aircraft available, sometimes this is all there is...and Oleg does use it

Low_Flyer_MkII
10-13-2005, 02:17 PM
On a pedantic note, I see you have mistaken "Fight For The Sky" as Bader's autobiography. It is a general history of the Spitfire and Hurricane written by a former Royal Air Force Group Captain. Would you decry Dr Alfred Price's works about the Luftwaffe on the grounds that he never flew a 190?

OD_79
10-13-2005, 02:44 PM
One small point to the argument that he never flew a MKIX Spitfire, the major difference between the IX and the V was the engine, it was the same airframe. It was a faster aircraft that remained in service throughout the war, and afterwards with other nations, still lethal at the end of the war without its upgrades. There is no question that the Fw190 was an excellent aircraft here. What the statement says is that the aircraft came as a shock to the RAF, it did. Nothing he has said is wrong, I don't know what the problem is, plus someone above has said that tis book was not even written by Bader. In which case what was posted is completely out of context with the discussion.
Sorry Roland but Bader was an experienced leader with a lot of flying and combat experience. Again as someone else pointed out he can have contact with other people, plus the book was not written at the time, so he had had plenty of opportunities to find out from offical RAF sources, as he remained in the RAF after the war. So what exactly is your point. If this is your stance you have no more right to comment on the advantages and disadvantages of either aircraft as all of your knowledge is from second hand sources.

OD.

Stigler_9_JG52
10-13-2005, 03:56 PM
Pilots' quotes might not be reliable from a scientific POV (unless it's based on logbooks from a test pilot, for example), but they should be taken seriously and taken in context.

I'm sorry, but reading a consensus of pilots telling me a Spitfire can outturn a 109 most of the time, and then seeing test data that shows that, in some respects, the 109 outturns the Spit... well, I'm not going to discount either of these. I'd use it as perhaps a basis to investigate further. That might lead one to discover that, indeed, a 109E has a smaller turning radius, yet the Spit carries quite a bit more speed throughout the turn and thus will gain angles on the 109 in short order.

Neither source, pilots quotes or raw test data* are indisputable and neither should be either taken as gospel or dismissed out of hand.

* The problem with test data being, questions which may arise about the exact conditions of the plane when the test was done; fuel, whether the plane was captured or factory fresh, whether the pilots had access to info on "how to fly the plane correctly", etc. All of these can lead to misinterpretations in the data output. Case in point: the Akutan Zero captured by the US was in good shape...but it had a busted carburetor or fuel injector, so the testing showed, among some good data on how to beat the Zero, advice to do negative G moves to flood the carb, when in fact, this wouldn't help. Another example: a captured MiG-15 had a busted heater when the pilot defected with it, leading the US test data to report that it had no heating (which would be a big factor in high alt combat!). But it was patently false.

OD_79
10-13-2005, 05:00 PM
I would agree with the above post completely. Though I have never read that a 109 can out turn a Spitfire. I've always read that both the Hurricane and the Sptifire could easily out turn it, as well as maintain energy. This comes from both pilots accounts and other reference material.
There are flaws with all the information, unless it was done today with on board computers recording everything I don't believe that there is any alternative except to rely on pilot accounts. But there are just too many variables to conduct a properly scientific test on this.

OD.

bolillo_loco
10-13-2005, 06:09 PM
This is a very difficult, broad, and sensitive topic. I get the feeling that many people regard WWII combat vets as infallible and worship them like they are some sort of god. While they do deserve respect, no matter whom they fought for, they are none the less people just like you and I. This means they are subject to the laws of human nature. Some of them have excellent memories and could give detailed after action reports. Others could only remember bits and pieces, but made their best effort to give accurate information. Still others were of a questionable character and would point blank lie and deceive to gain the spotlight. To further aggravate this situation; many years had passed and books began to be written on their combat experience. The writers too were human and some wrote historically accurate books, while others didn€t. The writers often made mistakes and took things out of context. Still other writers were also of a questionable character and they interjected bits and pieces to add some fire and excitement to the story. Which brings us to this thread, did some combat vets lie or mislead events? Sure they did, but most tried to provide accurate accounts.

The two examples that come to my mind, Hub Zemke and the 479th Fighter Group,

Hub is often quoted as saying €œthe 479th did much better once they switched to the P-51 and stopped flying the P-38, kills went up and losses went down.

Many would read that statement and agree, but the problem is that it just isn€t true. If you take a detailed look into the 479th Fighter Group€s statistical record during a three month period where the 479th flew P-38s exclusively for their last month before transitioning into the P-51, then flew a mixed bag of P-38s and P-51s for 1 month (transitional month), and for the first month where they only flew P-51s after the transition from Lightnings to Mustangs, you will find that the often quoted statement is incorrect. The 479th actually did a lot better with the P-38s. Not only did they shoot down more German aircraft in both the air and ground, but their losses were actually lower with the Lightnings.

Why would Hub make such a statement? I haven€t a clue and I am sure that the reasons vary greatly. Perhaps a writer misquoted him, but one thing for sure is that Hub Zemke had no first hand knowledge of whether or not the 479th had in fact done better. Hub was lost before the 479th made its transition from Lightnings to Mustangs. He was in fact lost while flying a Mustang.

Another classic example is the Titanic. For years many Titanic survivors said that they saw the ship split in two just before it sank. The board of inquiry ruled out any possibility that such a ship could have broken in two, so for about 70 years this rumor was spread by books and films until the wreck of the Titanic was found in 1985. This particular example goes to show how stories of actual events can be altered.

In conclusion, until you have read a lot about a subject from many different points of view; you can indeed be misled by authors, publishers, and even eyewitnesses.

GBrutus
10-13-2005, 07:12 PM
After reading J. Johnson's book I was under the impression that He himself won the war for the allies single handed. Fearless, always superior, always confident...he wrote a comic book a Hollywood movie scenario, he didn't write how it really felt being there.

There is nothing remotely 'Hollywood' about 'Wing Leader', it's a fine read.

Xiolablu3
10-13-2005, 08:11 PM
I have tried to get this point across too people arriving in here and saying something like ' P51 was the best fighter of the war! All the US WW2 pilots said it and it says so on all the TV progs/American books.'

Just because the pilots reigned supreme against German fighters this does NOT mean it was a superior aircraft to the Axis fighters.

The Germans were massively outnumbered and trying to attack the bombers and leave the US fighters. Its like comparing the fighter vs fighter kills in the BOB and leaving out the bomber kills, it just doesnt add up to say the Mustang had a this-to-this kill ratio.


Just because a pilot quotes it as a great fighter the circumstances and feelings of the pilot are 60% of whats being said, NOT always the facts.

I printed a link not long back about a US airmen getting into big trouble with the US General for saying that he thought the Spitfire was the best plane in the world. I'll bet he never made the mistake again and 'changed' his opinion very quick...

NorrisMcWhirter
10-14-2005, 09:54 AM
Pilot quotes...

1. Clostermann praised the skills of a German pilot who took on ~7 P51s in his D9 and shot 3 down. IIRC, the rest ran off.

As the guy was on the opposite side, this only serves to reinforce the credibility of the story.

Conclusion? D9 can take on 7 P51s with relative ease.

2. Heinz Knocke spoke of being attacked by ~6 P47s and getting damaged by one in a dive. Close to the ground, he forced an overshoot and shot one of the P47s down.

Conclusion? 1 109 can end a battle with ~6 P47s favourably (1:1 loss).

Do we still think that pilot quotes are representative examples?

IMO, the only pilot quotes that can be believed are where the incident is cooberrated by a second party or, better still, the enemy. Clostermann also had a lot to say about that, too, in respect of overclaiming.

ta,
Norris

ploughman
10-14-2005, 01:20 PM
With respect to the Knocke quote his aircraft was on fire at the time and the P-47, flown by an ace with something like 13+ kills (of the top of my head) made the mistake of thinking he was out of the fight and overshot to his deteriment. Knocke and the P-47 pilot had a chat whilst floating about in the drink before the rescue plane arrived. Knocke went back to combat, the P-47 pilot to a Stalag Luft.

Roland. If you disagree with Bader fair enough. My point was he's alot more qualified than most people to comment on such matters, and the Bader quotation wasn't pilot reporting in the sense of a post mission debrief or an after action report was it?

Low Flyer II. It's "Reach for the Sky." And while I didn't mistake it for an autobiography I did assume (perhaps mistakenly) that it was authrised and represented Bader's 'view' of his capture.

faustnik
10-14-2005, 01:36 PM
A little OT but, one of favorite authors on the subject of WW2 aircraft is Cpt. M. Brown. He has the rare distinction of having flown almost all of the RAF, USAAF and LW aircraft types and makes comparisons between the types. His comparisons of the Spitfire and Fw190 come from having spent a lot of time flying both types.

ViktorViktor
10-14-2005, 02:14 PM
Faustnik, my impression of Brown is that his was a darned good ferry pilot, he could fly almost anything.

But was he ever in combat ? He seems to have no combat flying experience, judging from the way he writes. Does anyone know ?

bolillo_loco
10-14-2005, 02:31 PM
I personally tend to find "real combat pilot's" opinions to be less accurate than those of test pilots. Combat pilots tend to base their opinions on their own emotions while test pilots base their opinions on facts. Test pilots also were able to put an aircraft through its paces under very exacting circumstances with few variables to mislead their findings. combat pilots on the other hand faced a lot of unknown variables which could mislead their opinions of x-aircraft.

I am not sure myself about Eric Brown, but I tend to think that he frequenly worked as an RAF test pilot.

Zyzbot
10-14-2005, 02:41 PM
Originally posted by ViktorViktor:
Faustnik, my impression of Brown is that his was a darned good ferry pilot, he could fly almost anything.

But was he ever in combat ? He seems to have no combat flying experience, judging from the way he writes. Does anyone know ?

If you are referring to Eric Brown...he was a combat pilot. In the book "Wing of the Luftwaffe" he tells of combat in the Martlet against Fw-200 Condors. In another part of the book he recounts the time that he was flying a Gladiator on a training flight when he and another pilot came upon 2 He-111 bombers. As they dove for the attack... AAA shot at the He-111's. One exploded and the other was flying so close that it too was destroyed in the explosion. His Gladiator was close enough that it received holes in the fabric.


"While escorting Convoy OG-74, outbound to Gibraltar, the first Fw-200 was shot down on September 21. Eric Brown, later known as one of the foremost test pilots in history, got his first Condor - the squadron's third kill - on November 7, 1941, during the second trip to Gibraltar; his Martlet had a slightly-bent prop, but there were only 4 aircraft left aboard "Audacity" by then. Returning from Gibralter, he scored his second Condor kill on 19 December 1941."

http://www.fleetairarmarchive.net/Squadrons/802.html

ViktorViktor
10-14-2005, 02:53 PM
OK, I guess Brown has seen some combat then. On with the discussion.

faustnik
10-14-2005, 03:01 PM
Cpt. Brown was a combat pilot and a test pilot as Bolillo pointed out. He flew Marlets and Spitfires in combat against Focke-Wulfs (Marlets vs. Fw200, Spits IXs vs. Fw190s).

Low_Flyer_MkII
10-14-2005, 03:24 PM
Ploughman, my gripe was with the originator of this thread who posted:-

"The Focke-Wulf 190 certainly gave the British a shock. 1941 had ended with the Me 109 with the Spitfire (two cannons and four machine-guns fighting it out on fairly even terms. Then, without warning from British intelligence sources, this startling aeroplane appeared in March 1942. A radial-engineered fighter, it out-climbed and out-dived the Spitfire. Now for the first time the Germans were out-flying our pilots. Instantly Rolls and Supermarine retaliated with the Spitfire IXa which equalled the 190, followed at the spring of 1942 with the IXa which equalled the 190, followed at the end of 1942 with the IXb which outflew it in all respects. The Spitfire was unchallenged for the rest of the war, except in the last few months by the Messerschmitt 262 jet which arrived too late to make a significant contribution.


Douglas Bader taken from his Autobiography."

This passage is taken from 'Fight For The Sky: The Story of The Spitfire And The Hurricane' by Group Captain Douglas Bader
with special contributions and help from
Group Captain Sir Max Aitken
Air Chief Marshall Sir Harry Broadhurst
Air Commadore A.C. Deere
Group Captain H.S.L. Dundas
Wing Commander D. Gillam
Air Vice Marshal J.e. Johnson
Wing Commander P.B. Lucas
Air Vice Marshall M. Lyne

1973, Sidgwick & Jackson Ltd

(Page 25 of my 1973 Book Club Associates edition)

As I'm sure you know Bader's popular biography 'Reach For The Sky' was written by Paul Brickhill.

It just tickled me that the poster seemingly seeking to hold himself up as a champion of hard facts and verifiable sources made such a ***** with his own reporting.

BigKahuna_GS
10-14-2005, 03:48 PM
S!

__________________________________________________ _________________________
Faustnick---The problem with pilot quotes are that there is always another pilot quote to counter it. Read the "Report of the Joint Fighter Conference, Oct. 1944". Pilots from the same country flying the exact same aircraft can't agree on anything.
__________________________________________________ _________________________


Hehe good point Faust. You know what they say about opinons--everybodys got one. That is why it is good to look at the whole context of an issue.

Out of the 20-30 test pilots flying an aircraft during the RJFC ---you have to look at consensus--how did the majority of the pilots grade a particular flight parameter or aircraft.

I also look for collaberative reports that support documented performance in pilot after action reports or debriefings. Pilot reports from both sides (allied/axis) that indicate a certain performance parameter usually support one another.

___

__________________________________________________ _________________________
ytareh Posted Wed October 12 2005 11:41
Just finished reading ROBERT Johnsons book 'Thunderbolt'-he was a leading WW2 ace in the same plane.He gives the impression that the P47 and FW190 diving abilities were about relative to a rock and a feather!I lost count of the number of times he blew up(and he did mean exploded in pieces!) FWs pursuing them in dives -He always said 'They never learn-you cant outdive a P47'.
He also reports that after a new 'paddle' prop was fitted the P47 outclimbed the Spit IX too."
__________________________________________________ __________________________



You better re-read Johnson's book, he never claims to out climb a Spit 9--in fact he says the Spit 9 outclimbed his Jug like it was standing still during a SUSTAINED climb. Johnson did say he could use his superior speed and energy to out ZOOM CLIMB the Spit 9.

Zoom climb vs Sustained climb --big difference.


Witold Lanowski, a Polish RAF Spitfire pilot flying with the 56th FG made almost the exact same comments on the P47's dive acceleration and weapons as R.Johnson. Lanowski said the P47 dove so fast and caught german fighters so rapidly, that he was sure there must have been mid-air collisions from the speed difference. Lanowoski also said his first kill in a P47 completely exploded a FW190 and that he had trouble doing the same in a Spitfire because of the limited number of 20mm rounds and the guns being so far apart. Interesting.


__

Badsight.
10-14-2005, 03:50 PM
reading about Douglas Bader its clear that he was totally up himself

wtf would he know about how it was going down in the skies in 42 , 43 , 44 & 45 while sitting in Colditz castle anyhow ?

he was captured in 1941 , i mean did he even get to fly a Merlin-66 Spitfire ?!?!

Low_Flyer_MkII
10-14-2005, 04:19 PM
Bader flew a Merlin-66 Spit when he took part in the BoB commemorative fly-past over London, September 1945. He left the RAF in 1946.

He does seem to polarize opinions - Deighton and Bishop give the impression that they wouldn't have liked to serve under him. Turner and Burns definate paid-up members of the fan club.

faustnik
10-14-2005, 04:38 PM
Lanowoski also said his first kill in a P47 completely exploded a FW190 and that he had trouble doing the same in a Spitfire because of the limited number of 20mm rounds and the guns being so far apart. Interesting.

Kahuna,

This certainly makes sense, but, is a good illustration of the problems in relating pilot quotes to the sim. This could be read as, "with the P-47 putting out more than 500% more projectiles than the Spit's two Hispanos, the chances of getting a hit in a critical area are much greater with the P-47". Unfortunately, many will read that as ".50s are better than Hispanos, the .50 is porked in PF, Oleg is biased". http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

I'll take the careful comparison of kinetic and chemical energy delivered to the target of a study like that by Williams and Gustin any day. Weapons damage is an excellent example of an area where data would be more useful than pilot accounts to a sim producer. FMs seem to have a lot more subtle variables, I would think pilot accounts would be useful there. As you point out, there will always be differences in pilot accounts but, a clear consensus must mean something.

p1ngu666
10-14-2005, 05:08 PM
hats off to bader, one of the most determined men ever tbh

Monty_Thrud
10-14-2005, 05:11 PM
Deighton is an @@@@...and the .50 are porked..something just isnt right

Monty_Thrud
10-14-2005, 05:12 PM
Bader...a very good man http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif

Pirschjaeger
10-14-2005, 09:17 PM
Originally posted by Bearcat99:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by mynameisroland:
The Focke-Wulf 190 certainly gave the British a shock. 1941 had ended with the Me 109 with the Spitfire (two cannons and four machine-guns fighting it out on fairly even terms. Then, without warning from British intelligence sources, this startling aeroplane appeared in March 1942. A radial-engineered fighter, it out-climbed and out-dived the Spitfire. Now for the first time the Germans were out-flying our pilots. Instantly Rolls and Supermarine retaliated with the Spitfire IXa which equalled the 190, followed at the spring of 1942 with the IXa which equalled the 190, followed at the end of 1942 with the IXb which outflew it in all respects. The Spitfire was unchallenged for the rest of the war, except in the last few months by the Messerschmitt 262 jet which arrived too late to make a significant contribution.


Douglas Bader taken from his Autobiography.

Now this quote is his opinion it bears no truth to actual hard facts. [i]For starters Douglas Bader was shot down and captured in the 9th of August 41. Therefore he must have been a phsycic to actually know how the spitfire IXb reigned supreme for the rest of the war[/b].

The problem with pilots memoirs is that they are all based on emotion and hardly ever contain any factual information. Perhaps Bader in a Spitfire IX was better than an average Fw 190 pilot, but to say that the Spitfire IX was superior to the Fw 190 A5/6/8 then D9 ect is plain wrong yet there is a generation out there of enthusiasts who have read Baders autobiography and have their views fixed.

This is why if there is a discussion about aircraft performance someone producing a pilot quote doesnt mean too much.

Consider that A)Bader died in 1982 at the age of 72. No psychic powers needed there... it seems he was writing in the past tense so.....

Also consider:

Type: Spitfire Mk. IX
Function: fighter
Year: 1942 Crew: 1 Engines: 1 * 1565hp R.R. Merlin 61
Wing Span: 11.23m Length: 9.47m Height: 3.86m Wing Area: 22.48m2
Empty Weight: 2556kg Max.Weight: 4309kg
Speed: 656km/h Ceiling: 13400m Range: 700km
Armament: 2*g20mm 4*mg7.7mm

Type: Fw 190A-3
Function: fighter
Year: 1942 Crew: 1 Engines: 1 * 1250kW BMW 801D-2
Speed: 636km/h Ceiling: 11300m Range: 800km
Armament: 2*mg7.9mm 4*g20mm

I dont know what the breakdown of where which plane was at which time.... but as far as these to and these atats go.... except for range goes..... but you are correct to some extent ... pilot accounts arent always 100%reliable.... but to totally dispell them would be a mistake. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I agree with you Bearcat but then comes the next question; how do you choose what to believe? It's worse than trying to choose the various results from different tests on the same planes.

I'll take the easy way and put my faith in Oleg. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/11.gif This gives me more free time to do the things I like and gives me peace of mind. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

Is Il-2 a new religion? http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/blink.gif

But seriously, to get an idea of who you can trust you need to see what everyone else is saying (consistant agreement). You also need to study a lot of specs. I'm just not that much into it.

Excuse me, I have to go pray for a patch. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

Fritz

Pirschjaeger
10-14-2005, 09:28 PM
Originally posted by NorrisMcWhirter:
Pilot quotes...

1. Clostermann praised the skills of a German pilot who took on ~7 P51s in his D9 and shot 3 down. IIRC, the rest ran off.

As the guy was on the opposite side, this only serves to reinforce the credibility of the story.

Conclusion? D9 can take on 7 P51s with relative ease.

Norris

The problem with this is the fact that it says nothing about the P-51 pilots.

The D9 may have had alt and sun advantage. He could have easily finished one on the first pass and disappeared into the sun. Maybe the P-51 pilots were very fresh and the D9 got their leader instantly leaving the remaining 6 pilots in a panic.

Then the D9 comes around and takes out the next while the remaing 5 are in confusion. The rest is easy to imagine with 4 noobs running for home.

What I just wrote was only from imagination of course.

My conclusion? 1 ace vs 1 vet+6 noobs

In no way am I trying to discredit Closterman, but we obviously get two different conclusions from the same account. This is one reason I like pilot accounts but never take them too seriously.

Fritz

Pirschjaeger
10-14-2005, 09:38 PM
Hi Norris,

To add, the fight was obviously not on equal ground. If the D9 pilot decided to take on 7 enemy fighters, and P-51's were never slouches, then he must have had an overwhelming advantage.

If the remaining 4 did run for home, this tells me they were either panicing or they never saw the D9 (possibly cloudy day?).

I do think the D9 was superior to the P-51 but your quote of Closterman doesn't support that.

Fritz

BigKahuna_GS
10-15-2005, 01:41 AM
S!

__________________________________________________ __________________________
Faust--Unfortunately, many will read that as ".50s are better than Hispanos, the .50 is porked in PF, Oleg is biased".
__________________________________________________ __________________________


Rgr that Faust. It is hard to keep people from reading into things, but that is where common sense should come in--according to a US Navy test, 3 Browning .50cals are the equivelent of 1-20mm gun. Any person that thinks that 1-.50cal is superior to 1-20mm Hispano needs some schoolin.

Tony Williams ballistic charts are an excellent resource.

I like reading pilot accounts in Shaw's Fighter Combat Manuevering because the pilot reports are disected into facts vs theory and analyized into tactical methedology.


Here is Lanowski's full quote it is an excellent read :
courtesy of Horseback

Roger Freeman€s Thunderbolt: A Documentary History of the Republic P-47


Respected Aviation Historian Roger Freeman was quite even-handed about the information he presented. In the Pilot Opinion chapter, he asked three pilots, all combat veterans in other types who also flew the P47 during their combat careers: Witold Lanowski (Spitfires), Jim Double (Hurricanes), and Urban Drew (Mustangs-modelers may be familiar with his P-51D Detroit Miss). Each compares and contrasts the P-47 with his previous ride. Unfortunately, he was unable to find a former Messerschmitt or Focke-Wulf pilot with P-47 combat experience (at least while flying a Thunderbolt€¦).


EUROPE: RAF Spitifire Pilot WITOLD LANOWSKI

€œWhen I was flying Spitfires in the Polish Air Force in 1943 we occasionally met Thunderbolts and had friendly €˜fights.€ This was at low altitudes and we could out-climb and out-turn them€"it was easy to get on their tails. We laughed about them and said, €˜This is not a fighter, it is a flying barrel!€ At the time I would not have been very happy if someone had told me I would one day be flying a Thunderbolt on operations. That such a big aircraft could be considered a fighter was silly in my opinion.

€œIn autumn 1943 I was assigned to a desk job---to my disgust. By then I had completed 97 operational flights. There were many other experienced Polish pilots being similarly placed and many of us had no intention of being grounded if we could possibly help it. The question was resolved when the Americans invited us some of us to fly with them and eventually permission was obtained from Air Ministry for six of us to go on short-term loan to the 56th Fighter Group. It was reciprocal gesture of friendship that had begun in 1919 when American fighter pilots (the originators of the first Kosciuszko Fighter Squadron) flew in Poland in her defense against the Bolsheviks; and later, in 1941 and 1942 American Poles trained and flew in the Polish Air Force under British Command. Francis Gabreski was one of these American Polish pilots and later as a USAAF Lieutenant Colonel commanded the 61st Fighter Squadron in the 56th Group. So in May 1944, we went to Boxted and formed a Polish flight in Gabreski€s squadron. I was going to fly the Thunderbolt!

But Thunderbolt or whatever, at least I was going to fight.

€œMy immediate reaction was amazement at the size of this single-seater. Climbing up the enormous fuselage and getting into the wide cockpit, it was hard to believe I was in a fighter. It was just like sitting in an armchair, I had space everywhere, fantastic visibility. (The pilot fitted like a hand in a glove in the other fighters I had flown€"in the French Caudron C714 the Perspex was a half-inch (12.7mm) from my shoulders and there was hardly room to turn my head.) At the same time there was satisfaction in being in such a large, powerful machine. I had laughed at it once but the Americans had shown what it could do: and in no time at all she gained my complete respect and admiration.

€œThere wasn€t any time for a conversion course. Everyone on the aerodrome was too busy. They said here is the aircraft, explained what is what, and off I went. All six of us were experienced and had flown many types of aircraft, so the Thunderbolt was one more and was no problem to fly once you knew where everything was in the cockpit. The Spitfire was relatively simple; the amount of clocks and gauges you had were negligible; the supercharger was automatic and from a simplicity angle piloting was easy. In comparison, the Thunderbolt was complicated, but in many ways easier to fly. When you took-off or landed the Thunderbolt never really swung and you could lock the tail wheel to keep it straight down the runway. The undercarriage was set very wide and, really, you had to be a bloody awful pilot to have an accident in a Thunderbolt --- if there was nothing mechanically wrong. With the Spitfire with its narrow track undercarriage take-off and landing required a lot more skill, especially in winter in snow and on the ____ (missing word-hb) it could be held on a steady course. Another thing that was good was the cockpit heating. We didn€t have this in the Spitfire which made it more difficult to be efficient if you were half frozen.

€œThe biggest disadvantage of the Thunderbolt was its weight and we knew that we would have to fight in a different way to that in Spitfires. On the other hand it possessed the capacity to give an extra 400 hp by means of water injection, for use in an emergency, but only for a few minutes otherwise you blew your engine to pieces. I don€t think there was any aircraft at the time that would dive so fast as the Thunderbolt. First time I dived after an enemy plane I came up with him so quickly it was a bit of a shock. The Germans nearly always dived to escape: just flip over and down. So we could easily catch them with the superior speed of the Thunderbolt --- but it gained so quickly I am sure there must have been some collisions. Later models even had dive brakes. "

The Thunderbolt could turn quite well at speed but it was not safe to try to turn too far with a 190 or 109. It was best to go only a half circle, shoot, and then pull out; or three-quarters of a circle at the most. I had several engagements with German fighters at heights of between 5,000 and 10,000 ft. Dogfighting with them in a Thunderbolt needed care, it was not for the inexperienced. It was better to clear your tail, make a swift attack, then dive away. The only Thunderbolt pilot I saw hit and go down in a dogfight didn€t check his tail. I shot the German off him but it was already too late. I considered the 190 a better aircraft than the Messerschmitt; it could give you a tougher fight. The problem was that in a mix-up you sometimes had difficulty at long range telling which was a P-47 and which was an Fw 190 as they both had radial engines. In fact, I once mistakenly fired on another Thunderbolt. Luckily, I didn€t hit him.

€œThe most impressive thing about the Thunderbolt was the armament. There was no time for gunnery practices when I joined the 56th so I had no experience of what the heavy Browning machine guns would do in combat. The very first time I got on the tail of a Focke-Wulf and gave him a very short burst he absolutely exploded! It was fantastic! Nothing like this had ever happened in Spitfires due to the wide setting of the cannons (2) and machine guns (4), and small amount of rounds per cannon. Sometimes the enemy fighter would smoke but I had never seen one explode. The concentration and punch of bullets from those eight €˜Point-Fifties€ in the Thunderbolt was tremendous. You could see where you were hitting which you rarely saw with other fighters I flew. And if you saw where you were hitting all you had to do was pull your deflection, and there it was--- explosion! I have always believed the principal reason the Thunderbolt did so well in air fighting was its firepower.

€œI would say that there was very little difference between the flight behavior of the various Thunderbolt models I flew. The bubble hood gave a vast improvement in visibility, and the hood, being electrically operated, was simple to ease open a few inches, enabling you to get a breath of fresh air in the cockpit. Because the engine had a big appetite the cry was always for bigger tanks to carry more fuel. The first bubble hood P-47Ds were given to the leaders and we then had a problem because these aircraft had a bigger internal fuel tank. Some leaders would be busy chasing Germans and forget that they had more fuel than the other pilots.

€œI never had any real mechanical problems on my Thunderbolt; the standard of American engineering was very good and our mechanics were excellent. Another good thing was that Republic had a permanent representative on the aerodrome who was constantly interested in what we wanted improved or modified. Because the 56th was such a successful group --- and in my opinion a lot of this success was due to Hubert Zemke: he was the best leader of any nationality that I served with --- it often got new equipment to try out. We tested the rocket tubes fitted under the wings. Nobody liked them. There was a story that when some fellow fired his rockets they did a 180? turn and came back at him! We were one of the first to try napalm --- I think it was Schilling who dropped some on the field at Boxted to see what would happen.

€œNear the end of the war we got the very fast P-47M which we polished up to get extra speed. It had the very good gyroscopic gunsight only I must admit that we were not really happy about the change as we had become so used to the old sight. Then there was the two-seat Thunderbolt which was fitted out with a radar set and had antenna sticking out form the wings. The idea was to try and find German aircraft in the air while we were over Germany. It wasn€t successful as the radar did not function very well and the aircraft was so much slower than the rest.

€œThe Thunderbolt was well known for the punishment it could take. I have seen one come back to Boxted with a top cylinder and piston blown completely off with a shell. No liquid cooled engine fighter could take such punishment (I had a friend who was shot down in a Spitfire by a single rifle bullet in the cooling system --- on maneuvers in England!). Between 1935 and 1959 I flew more than forty different aircraft. The Thunderbolt wasn€t the best propeller driven type I flew, but during the war I never felt safer than I did in a Thunderbolt. It could take more and give more than any other single-seat fighter of its day.

€œTo make comparisons between the Thunderbolt and any other aircraft, such as the Spitfire, is not really justifiable in that its capacity and ability were totally different. Therefore it is somewhat unfair to make such omparisons. The Spitfire was a short range --- per one battle, aircraft --- Paris and back. The Thunderbolt was a long range (and with later models, a very long range) aircraft --- 2 to 3, or more, battles per mission --- Berlin and back. Even so, this exceptional aircraft demanded greater experience plus additional training of its pilots to do it justice. But due to the progressive speed of the war itself and the demand so placed on the pilots, the US 8th Air Force had no option but to replace the Thunderbolts with the less demanding long range P-51 Mustang.

€œHowever, the 56th Fighter Group, on their own request, were permitted to keep the Thunderbolt. As the top scoring American Group*(in air-to-air combat) it seemed fitting they should retain the remarkable Thunderbolt that had helped to make them one of the most famous fighter units of the war.€

The historical common theme heard over and over again from P47 pilots is tremendous dive acceleration, great firepower 8- .50cals & airframe ruggedness.


___

bolillo_loco
10-15-2005, 01:55 AM
The best example I can think of as an unreliable combat pilot would be Boyington. I am not Boyington slamming here either. The man is a self-admitted alcoholic and further states that he had problems with drinking long before the war began. Having had a lot of experience with alcoholics I can tell you that it does make liars out of normally honest men. I rather like him even though he lied on several occasions. The man has a certain charism about him which offsets his lying.

BigKahuna_GS
10-15-2005, 02:33 AM
S!



bolillo_loco Posted Sat October 15 2005 00:55
The best example I can think of as an unreliable combat pilot would be Boyington. I am not Boyington slamming here either. The man is a self-admitted alcoholic and further states that he had problems with drinking long before the war began. Having had a lot of experience with alcoholics I can tell you that it does make liars out of normally honest men. I rather like him even though he lied on several occasions. The man has a certain charism about him which offsets his lying.


hya Bolillo,

My dad recently told me before he passed away that he had been asked by Boyington to join the 214 in the Solomon Islands. I got real interested at this point and asked if he had any regrets turning Boyington down.

It turns out that Boyington was one of the flight instructors at Pensacola at the same time my dad was going through basic there. Most everyone was aware of Boyington's personal problems of drinking, fighting and financial woes. No wonder Boyington left for the AVG and a chance to make some real money and new scenery.

Boyington's personal problems weighed heavy on my dad's mind in his decison not to join 214. He was concerened that Boyington's drinking problems would affect his combat leadership and tactical judgement. These concerns were legit but unfounded. Boyington proved to be one of the best Marine combat leaders & pilots ever, despite his off duty faults. Boyington was also one courageous SOB often taking the worst aircraft available or the greenest pilot as his wingman so as to instill confidence in his pilots and in their planes.

Boyington was truely a great fighter pilot who was also well educated (Aeronatical Engineer Washington University). He had the chance to lead an exceptional life after WW2 like Joe Foss becoming Govener of South Dakota and Marion Carl. That was not to be as Boyington let alchohol destroy his life and relationships for many years.


__

GR142-Pipper
10-15-2005, 02:59 AM
Originally posted by Stigler_9_JG52:
I'm sorry, but reading a consensus of pilots telling me a Spitfire can outturn a 109 most of the time, and then seeing test data that shows that, in some respects, the 109 outturns the Spit... well, I'm not going to discount either of these. I'd use it as perhaps a basis to investigate further. That might lead one to discover that, indeed, a 109E has a smaller turning radius, yet the Spit carries quite a bit more speed throughout the turn and thus will gain angles on the 109 in short order. That's a reasonable approach. However, if the pilots return with consistently the same story over and over based on their real experinces, I'll go with the pilots EVERY time. The critical issue is that the pilot sample size has to be large enough to be meaningful and that's highly dependent on what the issue being discussed is.

GR142-Pipper

BigKahuna_GS
10-15-2005, 03:18 AM
S!


Pipper---check your private messages !



__

NorrisMcWhirter
10-15-2005, 03:33 AM
Originally posted by Pirschjaeger:
Hi Norris,

To add, the fight was obviously not on equal ground. If the D9 pilot decided to take on 7 enemy fighters, and P-51's were never slouches, then he must have had an overwhelming advantage.

If the remaining 4 did run for home, this tells me they were either panicing or they never saw the D9 (possibly cloudy day?).

I do think the D9 was superior to the P-51 but your quote of Closterman doesn't support that.

Fritz

That was my (albeit saracastic) point exactly. Here we have a pilot quote with no supporting information regarding the engagement. The point was to show that pilot quotes need to be taken in context and it's (as said) only be checking against other information that you can actually see what went on.

Also, you can conclude what you like http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif It may well have been 7 aces vs 1 ace and the D9 started from an inferior position - neither you, nor I, can say one way or the other for certain.
We can only guess - and that's the problem. We have an idea why a situation panned out the way it did but that's assumption and, to quote an old Uni lecturer, to 'assume' is to make an '***' out of 'u' and 'me'. And that's why I cringe when I hear some people putting pilot quotes down so as to get a plane to be 'as it is in their quote' - it's dangerous.

As to Knocke, his plane may well have been on fire but that makes his victory even more of a success especially as he fought another day whereas he 'ace' that bagged him ended up as a POW.

Ta,
Norris

Pirschjaeger
10-15-2005, 04:21 AM
****, it looks like we agree Norris. Now what? http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/blink.gif

Fritz http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

Xiolablu3
10-15-2005, 04:29 AM
Great read Kahuna thanks. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif


On the subject of the FW190 and Spitfire we have in FB, I dont think either is better, I think they are very different.

If I am in an attacking scenario then I would prefer to be in the FW190A, big guns fast when diving.

But in a defensive scenario I hate being caught low and slow in a FW190A (Say Im doing ground attack or I get hit on by another fighter arriving half way thru a dogfight) and can escape much easier in a Spitfire. I find it very difficult to escape a fighter once he is locked on my tail in a 190A, Acceleration is not grate and turning circle at low speed is poor

Sorry to go off topic here but again it depends very much on how the pilot has been taught to find/what the situation is.

NorrisMcWhirter
10-15-2005, 08:41 AM
Originally posted by Pirschjaeger:
****, it looks like we agree Norris. Now what? http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/blink.gif

Fritz http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

Marriage, kids, dog, house in the country? http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Ta,
Norris

Pirschjaeger
10-15-2005, 08:50 AM
Originally posted by NorrisMcWhirter:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Pirschjaeger:
****, it looks like we agree Norris. Now what? http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/blink.gif

Fritz http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

Marriage, kids, dog, house in the country? http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Ta,
Norris </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I'm not greedy, I'll share. I'll take the dog and the house. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

Fritz

NorrisMcWhirter
10-15-2005, 09:01 AM
****. That's my plan scuppered http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Ta,
Norris

Pirschjaeger
10-15-2005, 09:07 AM
Ok, you can have the house and the dog but I get the refridgerator. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

Fritz

huggy87
10-15-2005, 09:28 AM
The most dubious thing I've ever heard is Chuck Yeager's claim that he would spot German fighters at 40-50 miles away. I have to call BS on that, unless maybe he caught some sun glinting. I have 20/25 vision and I can see an airliner size target at about 20 miles on a great visibility day. That is with the radar drawing a TD box around the guy basically saying "there he is dummy". For a fighter size target (modern fighter that is) I can spot them at about 12 miles with a lot of planform, much less nose on. And for the F-5's from VFC-13 that we regularly fight, I'm lucky to see those things until less than 3 miles away (often, not until too late).

Yeager later flew fighters with radars, so I am surprised he could make such a claim. How could his eyeball cal be so far off. Then again the fighters flew in swarms of sometimes 50 or more. And he supposedly had great eyesight. Still, it just sounds too far-fetched to me. Don't believe me, go outside, find a mountain about 40-50 miles distant (on a clear day) and see if you can pick out a small to medium sized tree on that mountain. You'll call BS too.

ViktorViktor
10-15-2005, 11:00 AM
Say it ain't so Huggy, say it ain't so.

blindpugh
10-15-2005, 12:24 PM
Originally posted by mynameisroland:
Think the Biography was written 1972. The statistics you show serve to misrepresent the argument. The Spitfire IXb fought against the Fw A4 / A5 onwards for the most part. The A2/3 mainly fought against the Spitfire Vb. Just because the RAF tested the Fw A3 against the Spit IXb did not mean that the Luftwaffe was flying that version, the Fw 190 as Im sure you know was progressively upgraded/boosted increased ect.

What the point is IMO is that Bader's memoirs are , understandably , very patriotic. Therefore he misleads the reader in to thinking the Spitfire/RAF pilots/ Britain was superior to 'Nazi' Germany generally. He is generalising on a subject that he felt strongly about. There is little or no evidnece to support his statement.

Bader talked of a period where the Spitfire IXb reigned supreme... how the hell would he know ? He was sitting in a prisoner of war camp. I suppose & -only suppose that it was because the spit and hurricane won the battle of britain and the allies went on to win the air war

faustnik
10-15-2005, 01:02 PM
<span class="ev_code_YELLOW">during the war I never felt safer than I did in a Thunderbolt. It could take more and give more than any other single-seat fighter of its day.</span>

All the accounts I have read mention the jugs toughness and pilot protection, a clear consensus. The Jug pilots felt very secure. As for firepower, it would heve to be rated very high, second only to the Fw190 and four Hispano RAF fighters.

Pirschjaeger
10-15-2005, 09:12 PM
Originally posted by huggy87:
The most dubious thing I've ever heard is Chuck Yeager's claim that he would spot German fighters at 40-50 miles away.

Proof Yaeger wasn't playing fullreal! He was using icons. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

Actually, just for sake of argument and support of the thread title, other factors could be mentioned such as vapor trails. Like you said, possible reflections of the sunshine. But I can think of no more than that.

I agree, BS.

Fritz

NorrisMcWhirter
10-16-2005, 03:30 AM
From 'The most dangerous enemy', P240

"In perfect conditions, a single aircraft can be picked up at a range of about 2 miles; in haze, it is less. A large formation can be seen from further away, perhaps 4 miles..."

Someone is clearly talking out of their a*se.

Ta,
Norris

Zyzbot
10-16-2005, 08:12 AM
Originally posted by NorrisMcWhirter:
From 'The most dangerous enemy', P240

"In perfect conditions, a single aircraft can be picked up at a range of about 2 miles; in haze, it is less. A large formation can be seen from further away, perhaps 4 miles..."

Someone is clearly talking out of their a*se.

Ta,
Norris


That's a bit conservative. I can see individual aircraft further away than 2 miles.

Pirschjaeger
10-16-2005, 09:28 AM
Originally posted by Zyzbot:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by NorrisMcWhirter:
From 'The most dangerous enemy', P240

"In perfect conditions, a single aircraft can be picked up at a range of about 2 miles; in haze, it is less. A large formation can be seen from further away, perhaps 4 miles..."

Someone is clearly talking out of their a*se.

Ta,
Norris


That's a bit conservative. I can see individual aircraft further away than 2 miles. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Think of it this way. When you look up on a clear day you can see airliners. Chances are, they are no higher than 11km. The airliner looks pretty small so I imagine this is probably somewhere around the limit. You'd barely be able to see a fighter from 11km.

Fritz

Zyzbot
10-16-2005, 09:46 AM
Originally posted by Pirschjaeger:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Zyzbot:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by NorrisMcWhirter:
From 'The most dangerous enemy', P240

"In perfect conditions, a single aircraft can be picked up at a range of about 2 miles; in haze, it is less. A large formation can be seen from further away, perhaps 4 miles..."

Someone is clearly talking out of their a*se.

Ta,
Norris


That's a bit conservative. I can see individual aircraft further away than 2 miles. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Think of it this way. When you look up on a clear day you can see airliners. Chances are, they are no higher than 11km. The airliner looks pretty small so I imagine this is probably somewhere around the limit. You'd barely be able to see a fighter from 11km.

Fritz </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


Of course it depends upon the size of the aircraft...but 11km is also a lot further than 2 miles...that's all I'm saying http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif I used to live 3 miles from an AFB and could easily see and identify individual aircraft taking off and landing at that distance. The 2 mile figure just struck me as very conservative.

Pirschjaeger
10-16-2005, 10:10 AM
Originally posted by Zyzbot:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Pirschjaeger:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Zyzbot:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by NorrisMcWhirter:
From 'The most dangerous enemy', P240

"In perfect conditions, a single aircraft can be picked up at a range of about 2 miles; in haze, it is less. A large formation can be seen from further away, perhaps 4 miles..."

Someone is clearly talking out of their a*se.

Ta,
Norris


That's a bit conservative. I can see individual aircraft further away than 2 miles. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Think of it this way. When you look up on a clear day you can see airliners. Chances are, they are no higher than 11km. The airliner looks pretty small so I imagine this is probably somewhere around the limit. You'd barely be able to see a fighter from 11km.

Fritz </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


Of course it depends upon the size of the aircraft...but 11km is also a lot further than 2 miles...that's all I'm saying http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif I used to live 3 miles from an AFB and could easily see and identify individual aircraft taking off and landing at that distance. The 2 mile figure just struck me as very conservative. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I was supporting you point. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

I would gestimate that 10 miles would be the limit. Even at that it would be amazing to see a little WW2 fighter.

If Yaeger did in fact say he could see an enemy at 40-50 miles, well, I'd like to know at what distance he can see Santa and Rudolf's nose. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

Fritz

NorrisMcWhirter
10-16-2005, 10:15 AM
There are some other considerations here in that you will hear the airliner and have a rough idea where it is, allowing your eyes to pinpoint it. No such assistance in an aircraft (unless you count radar).

Possibly a greater problem is the perspex between the pilot's eye and other aircraft which had a habit of distorting things. Pilots initially preferred open cockpits because of this and didn't like to wear goggles either.

Unfortunately, the book doesn't quite say how the numbers are arrived at but I suspect they weren't just plucked out of the ether.

Ta,
Norris

ViktorViktor
10-16-2005, 10:23 AM
Well, look at this way. If you live in a town on a hillside adjacent to a plain, and 40-50 miles away on the other side of the plain is a another town on a hillside , could you spot a bus driving around in the other town ?

Personally, I wouldn't be able to even spot the other town. But that's just me.

huggy87
10-16-2005, 01:24 PM
OK. I was actually inspired to get off my lazy butt and walk the three feet to grab my book. From Yeager's Autobiography, page 42, Bud Anderson talking about yeager:

"We'd see them coming from fifty miles away-the dimmest specks- minutes before anyone else."

From that tone, after rereading that passage, it seems that maybe he was just exagerrating. It probably just came across differently in the written vice spoken word. Luckily, that never happens in this forum.

Pirschjaeger
10-16-2005, 05:37 PM
Originally posted by huggy87:
OK. I was actually inspired to get off my lazy butt and walk the three feet to grab my book.

And we're all overjoyed you made it back relatively unscathed. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

Now it makes more sense. I've heard Anderson speaking in interviews and he does speak with exaggerations with no mal intent. I think Yaeger does this too but I guess it's easy to miss when it's printed in a book.

Fritz

wayno7777
10-16-2005, 10:11 PM
The point being made in that statment was 'minutes before the others'....

Jetbuff
10-17-2005, 12:24 AM
Great post earlier Sensei. Love this quote in particular:

If flight model was all that mattered, or hell, if mattered by 15% you wouldn't need to actually fight... just mail each other the EC charts and that would determine the winner.
http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

Pirschjaeger
10-17-2005, 02:30 AM
Originally posted by wayno7777:
The point being made in that statment was 'minutes before the others'....

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/10.gif I still think he was using icons. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/blink.gif

Fritz