PDA

View Full Version : The Value of War Records and Pilot Testimony



Blutarski2004
12-21-2006, 08:05 AM
The following exchange on another thread got me to thinking about the worth of war records and first person pilot accounts when evaluating aircraft.

Blutarski2004
12-21-2006, 08:05 AM
The following exchange on another thread got me to thinking about the worth of war records and first person pilot accounts when evaluating aircraft.

jasonbirder
12-21-2006, 08:16 AM
I would say the key thing to remember when reading pilot accounts is that we tend to read and remember the best & the most dramatic and it is not a representative sample...
Thinking about what i've read recently...
"The Big Show" Piere Closterman, "An Ace of the Eighth" Norman Fortier, "Baa Baa Black Sheep" etc etc...
These are exceptional pilots, "one offs", people who would make any plane perform brilliantly, pilots whose ability was an order of magnitude above that of most pilots...so it is small wonder having read these books that we instantly think that the spitfire/tempest...P47/P51...F4U are fantastic planes...
Obviously we don't read memoirs by pilots that got killed nor do we read many books by Junior Sgt sh*t Scared or Gefreiter Go Home Early...so we don't see both sides of the coin.
Also...just like when we talk about the cars we drive or the teams we support...every pilot believes the plane he flies is the best and writes accordingly...

JG14_Josf
12-21-2006, 09:34 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Thoughts? Comments? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

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

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

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">page 184
Double inferior conditions
------------------------------------------
Climbing extension/pitch-back tactics cannot be expected to work for the inferior fighter in this scenario, since the opponent has a Ps advantage. The other energy tactics discussed, which are intended to bleed the bogey's energy with a nose-to-tail turn...can still be effective against an inexperienced or careless opponent.
The following episode, found in Thunderbolt! by the World War II USAAF ace Robert S. Johnson, is one of the best examples available of the use of energy tactics (diving extension/pitch back) to defeat a double-superior opponent. The encounter described is a mock combat engagement over England between Johnson (P-47C) and an unidentified RAF pilot in a new Spitfire IX. The Spitfire had about a 25 percent better power loading and nearly a 25 percent lower wing loading. The Thunderbolt's only performance advantages were faster top speed, greater acceleration in a dive (because of the P-47s heavier weight and higher density), and better roll performance.) Johnson, undoubtedly one of the greatest natural fighter pilots of all time, used his roll performance defensively to allow himself the chance to build an energy advantage in a diving extension.

We flew together in formation, and then I decided to see just what this airplane had to its credit.
I opened the throttle full and the Thunderbolt forged ahead. A moment later exhaust smoke poured from the Spit as the pilot came after me. He couldn't make it; the Jug had a definite speed advantage. I grinned happily; I'd heard so much about this airplane that I really wanted to show off the Thunderbolt to her pilot. The Jug kept pulling away from the Spitfire; suddenly I hauled back on the stick and lifted the nose. The Thunderbolt zoomed upward; soaring into the cloud-flecked sky. I looked out and back: the Spit was straining to match me, and barely able to hold his position.
But my advantage was only the zoom-once in steady climb, he had me. I gaped as smoke poured from the exhausts and the Spitfire shot past me as if I were standing still. Could that plane climb! He tore upward in a climb I couldn't match in the Jug. Now it was his turn; the broad elliptical wings rolled, swung around, and the Spit screamed in, hell-bent on chewing me up.
This was going to be fun. I knew he could turn inside the heavy Thunderbolt; if I attempted to hold a tight turn the Spitfire would slip right inside me. First rule in this kind of fight: don't fight the way your opponent fights best. No sharp turns; don't climb: keep him at your own level.
We were at 5,000 feet, the Spitfire skidding around hard and coming in on my tail. No use turning: he'd whip right inside me as if I were a truck loaded with cement, and snap out in firing position. Well, I had a few tricks, too.
The P-47 was faster, and I threw the ship into a roll. Right here I had him. The jug could out roll any plane in the air, bar none. With my speed, roll was my only advantage, and I made full use of the manner in which the Thunderbolt could whirl. I kicked the Jug into a wicked left roll, horizon spinning crazily, once, twice, into a third. As he turned to the left to follow, I tramped down on the right rudder, banged the stick over to the right, around and around we went, left, right, left, right. I could whip through better than two rolls before the Spitfire even completed his first. And this killed his ability to turn inside me. I just refused to turn. Every time he tried to follow me in a roll, I flashed away to the opposite side, opening the gap between our two planes.
Then I played the trump. The Spitfire was clawing wildly through the air, trying to follow me in a roll, when I dropped the nose. The Thunderbolt howled and ran for the earth. Barely had the Spitfire started to follow-and I was a long way ahead of him by now - when I jerked back on the stick and threw the Jug into a zoom climb. In a straight or turning climb, the British ship had the advantage. But coming out of a dive, there's not a British or a German fighter that can come close to a Thunderbolt rushing upward in a zoom. Before the Spit pilot knew what had happened, I was high above him, the Thunderbolt hammering around. And that was it - for in the next few moments the Spitfire flier was amazed to see a less maneuverable, slower-climbing Thunderbolt rushing straight at him, eight guns pointed ominously at his cockpit.??? (Shaw quoting Johnson) </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

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

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

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

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

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


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

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Encounters between a low-wing-loaded fighter and an enemy fighter with greater T/W are quite common. In this case each fighter has performance advantages and disadvantages relative to its opponent. The engagement strategy is for the pilot to exploit the opponent's most serious weaknesses while taking full advantage of his own fighter's greatest strengths.
The low-wing-loaded fighter's greatest performance advantages are assumed to be good instantaneous turn performance, slow minimum speed, and tight sustained turn radius. In some cases this aircraft also might have a significant sustained-turn-rate advantage. Its weaknesses include inferior climb and acceleration performance under low-G conditions, and slower "top-end" speed."
"These characteristics are ideally suited to the use of angles tactics..."
"On the other hand, the pilot of a high-T/W fighter should concentrate on energy tactics when he is engaging a low-wing-loaded opponent. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

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

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

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

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">The manoeuvrability of the Fw 190 is better than that of the Spitfire VB except in turning circles [level sustained turns?], when the Spitfire can quite easily out-turn it. The Fw 190 has better acceleration under all conditions of flight and this must obviously be useful during combat. When the Fw 190 was in a turn and was attacked by the Spitfire, the superior rate of roll enabled it to flick into a diving turn in the opposite direction. The pilot of the Spitfire found great difficulty in following this manoeuvre and even when prepared for it was seldom able to allow the correct deflection. A dive from this manoeuvre enabled the Fw 190 to draw away from the Spitfire which was then forced to break off the attack. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">The climb of the Fw190 is superior to that of the Spitfire VB at all heights. The best speeds for climbing are approximately the same, but the angle of the Fw190 is considerably steeper. Under maximum continuous climbing conditions the climb of the Fw190 is about 450 ft/min better up to 25,000 feet [7,620 m]. With both aircraft flying at high cruising speed and then pulling up into a climb, the superior climb of the Fw 190 is even more marked. When both aircraft are pulled into a climb from a dive, the Fw 190 draws away very rapidly and the pilot of the Spitfire has no hope of catching it. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">From high-speed cruise, a pull up into a climb gave the Fw 190 an initial advantage owing to its superior acceleration and the superiority of the German fighter was even more noticeable when both aircraft were pulled up into a zoom climb from a dive. In the dive, the Fw 190 could leave the Spitfire Mk IX without difficulty and there was no gainsaying that in so far as manoeuvrability was concerned, the German fighter was markedly the superior of the two in all save the tight turn - the Spitfire could not follow in aileron turns and reversals at high speeds and the worst heights for its pilot to engage the Fw 190 in combat were between 18,000 and 22,000 ft (5485 and 6705 m), and at altitudes below 3,000 ft (915 m). </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Obviously fighter performance can be a complex subject, and the numbers alone don't always tell the whole story. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">In doing advanced conceptual design work on the lightweight fighter, he went over all his notes from the past, from as far back as Korea. He remembered his early E-M work and how difficult it was to prepare accurate E-M charts for the F-86. He remembered the F-86's countless battles with MiGs. He remembered how, on paper, the MiG was a superior aircraft in almost every respect. But the F-86 had a ten-to-one kill ratio against the MiG. Why?
Boyd pored over the notes again and again. could there be something else, some other element, perhaps an element not covered by E-M, that held the answer? Boyd made a list of attributes of the MiG and the F-86. For days he went into frequent trances as he groped for the answer. In the end he came up with two significant advantages the F-86 had over the MiG. First, the F-86 had a bubble canopy that gave the pilot a 360-degree field of vision, while the MiG pilot's view to the rear was blocked. Thus, the F-86 pilot had a much easier time observing his enemy than the enemy had observing him. Second, the F-86 had full hydraulic controls, while the MiG did not. This meant that the F-86 pilot could control his aircraft with one finger, while controlling the MiG was so difficult that MiG pilots often lifted weights between flights in order to gain strength. The unboosted controls of the MiG meant that its pilot grew fatigued more quickly than the F-86 pilot but, far more importantly, the F-86 driver could go from one maneuver to another more quickly than the MiG driver. In a practical sense this meant the F-86 pilot could go through a series of either offensive or defensive maneuvers quicker than could his adversary. And with each maneuver he gained a half second or a second on his enemy until he could either break for separation or be in position for a kill. the MiG was faster in raw acceleration and in turning ability, but the F-86 was quicker in changing maneuvers. And in combat, quicker is more important.
These advantages - better observation and greater agility - would make the lightweight fighter an even more extraordinary air-craft. This concept of agility was an intimation of what in another few years would be the best-known part of the Boyd's legacy. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

http://mysite.verizon.net/res0l0yx/IL2Flugbuch/Corner%20time.jpg

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">"The Russians consisted of a group of around nine Yaks, diving out of the clouds from an altitude of about 1000 meters and flying as a group toward the FW 190s parked on the runway. To my luck, most of the Yaks shot at the machines on the left side. They made only a single attack then disappeared as they had come. As it later turned out, one remained and made a second attack on my FW 190. With a great deal of effort, I had managed to leave the ground and just managed to clear the hanger with difficulty, my undercarriage still down, when the Yak shot at me. I was lucky in that the Russian was far too fast and was himself surprised at his opportunity. He missed me entirely, shooting away past me with his machine. I had been warned and was now aware of what the
Russians would do in this situation. With the undercarriage and flaps in, the 190 was making up ground, the weapons ready, my 250 kg bombs jettisoned in preparation to take up the aerial battle. Unfortunately, I didn't have much time, the Yak 9 was already behind me and shooting, but the pilot must have been a beginner, for again his aim wasn't very good. At this stage, I still did not know whether he was alone or whether there were still other Yaks in the area. Meanwhile, I had reached sufficient speed to do battle. I could observe my opponent, now the chances were even and it boiled down to flying ability. I was given and advantage; ground control informed me on the radio that this was the only Yak around, at least in this area. Subsequently, I succeeded in getting behind him, but my shots were also not successful, I was a bit nervous. The furious turning battle was played out about 300-400 meters over the airfield. In addition, my colleagues on the ground were on the radio playing along. I told them to shut their mouths and turn off the radio. A savage battle now began, the pilot was better than I had reckoned him to be at the beginning. Each of us tried to get behind the other and get into a good position. While turning, each of us managed to fire, but neither of us made any successful hits. We had been circling now for over five minutes when he made the decisive error by trying to leave the turning circle and leave the area, heading off to the right. He set his machine on the horizontal and , at this moment, I sat about 50-80 meters behind him and had him full in my sights. I pressed the trigger on the cannon and something flared up in his cockpit, the Yak tipped over on its right wing and fell to the ground. My friends were shouting into the radio, "You've shot him down! You can land, there are no more Russians over the airfield." I could hardly believe that the battle had so quickly been decided, the flight lasted 15 minutes. After landing, I taxied to my parking place and shut off the engine, happy to be on the ground again. So many times over the last few weeks, I had not escaped unscathed and had had to land after being attacked. My mechanics greeted me joyfully, in spirit, they had been up there with me, They told me that nine or ten Yaks had come out of the clouds and attacked the airfield. One turned back and attacked my 190, the other Yak pilots leaving their colleague in the lurch and flying back to their base.
The StaffelKapitan congratulated me on my success and drove me to the crash site of the Yak. The pilot was a Kapitan with about 350 enemy flights. He had papers and a letter from his parents on him. His name was Kapitan Ivanov, 24 years old and and old hand flying at the Front, with blue eyes and blond hair and medals as well. He even wore Czarist shoulder epaulettes, the first we had ever seen. We then drove to the Gruppe command post and I reported to the Kommandeur. He only shortly said, "Buchner, at 1400 hrs, there's a Ju 52 going to Breslau and there's a place for you on it". </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Instead of telegraphing their intentions by forming up at high altitude in full view of the German radar, the British now took to crossing the Channel at low level, then climbing flat out just before they reached the coast. At the same time, increasing use was made of low-level penetrations by light bombers, which called for a different approach to the fighter escort mission. For the Jagdflieger, the leisurely wait at cockpit readiness, followed by a calculated climb to altitude, was now eliminated: the Spitfires, rocketing skywards at full throttle, were often already above.
With the advent of the FW 190A, this was not as critical as it once had been. The aircraft was a superb dogfighter, and its pilots used it as such. The previous summer, faced with slashing attacks by the 109s, the constant complaint of RAF pilots was that ???Jerry??? didn???t stay and fight, totally ignoring the fact that in a 109 this was tactically correct. Now they were repaid in spades: in his new FW 190A, ???Jerry??? stayed and fought as never before. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">I twisted and turned in an endeavor to avoid being jumped and at the same time to get myself into a favourable position for attack. Never had I seen the Huns stay and fight it out as these Focke-Wulf pilots were doing.(403 Squadron leader Al Deere) </div></BLOCKQUOTE>



http://mysite.verizon.net/res0l0yx/IL2Flugbuch/DiveZoomTest1b.jpg

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

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">The Fw 190 has better acceleration under all conditions of flight and this must obviously be useful during combat. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Comparative dives between the two aircraft have shown that the Fw 190 can leave the Spitfire with ease, particularly during the initial stages. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">With both aircraft flying at high cruising speed and then pulling up into a climb, the superior climb of the Fw 190 is even more marked. When both aircraft are pulled into a climb from a dive, the Fw 190 draws away very rapidly and the pilot of the Spitfire has no hope of catching it. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

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

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

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">All lies and jest, still, a man hears what he wants to hear and disregards the rest. - Simon and Garfunkel, The Boxer </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Thoughts? Comments? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

The reliance upon WWII factory flight test data performed by factory flight test pilots for the purpose of programming a flight simulator ???by the numbers??? is, in my opinion, much like John Boyd???s effort to use flight test data performed by test pilots for computer aided design of the F-18 and the F-16 both of which are now flying around the world.

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

My thoughts:

The Spitfire in the game is under-modeled in deceleration performance ???dumping??? and over-modeled in ???pumping??? acceleration because it is relatively light and relatively low in power compared to the FW190 which is relatively heavy and relatively more powerful in thrust.

Reliance upon factory test pilot test data alone will not identify this relative performance disparity. Pilot accounts may offer some evidence supporting this relative difference in performance ??? Robert Shaw apparently thought so:

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">The following episode, found in Thunderbolt! by the World War II USAAF ace Robert S. Johnson, is one of the best examples available of the use of energy tactics (diving extension/pitch back) to defeat a double-superior opponent. The encounter described is a mock combat engagement over England between Johnson (P-47C) and an unidentified RAF pilot in a new Spitfire IX. The Spitfire had about a 25 percent better power loading and nearly a 25 percent lower wing loading. The Thunderbolt's only performance advantages were faster top speed, greater acceleration in a dive (because of the P-47s heavier weight and higher density), and better roll performance.) Johnson, undoubtedly one of the greatest natural fighter pilots of all time, used his roll performance defensively to allow himself the chance to build an energy advantage in a diving extension. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Well???that was the P-47C vs. the Spitfire IX example.

Imagine a P-47 trying to decelerate slower than a Spitfire IX?

Or not

Viper2005_
12-21-2006, 10:12 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Blutarski2004:
For example, we all know the famous story about the P47 absorbing a huge number of 20mm hits and making it home. But Heinz Knoke relates three or four attacks on P47s in which a single burst from his 109 caused the P47 to explode. Who's telling the truth? Maybe both.

I think that the greatest worth of such pilot accounts derives when evaluated in large numbers. In that case, statistical techniques can be employed to draw out information that will carry some degree of validity.

Thoughts? Comments?


Merry Christmas and Happy Holidays to all. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I suspect that the behaviour of the P-47 under fire would have been a strong function of turbocharger rpm. Since the turbo is at the back of the aeroplane, it would have been relatively vulnerable to fire.

Hit any kind of turbomachinery whilst it is spinning at high rpm and the results will tend to be spectacular. I have heard reports of Corsairs disintegrating in mid air as a result of mishandling the supercharger controls.

As such it would not surprise me if the otherwise robust P-47 were taken down by a single burst to the turbocharger...

I agree that a statistical approach to pilot accounts is probably the best approach, perhaps especially with regard to weapon effectiveness. However, I'd always prefer to use data derived from test flying.

Blutarski2004
12-21-2006, 12:27 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Viper2005_:
I suspect that the behaviour of the P-47 under fire would have been a strong function of turbocharger rpm. Since the turbo is at the back of the aeroplane, it would have been relatively vulnerable to fire.

Hit any kind of turbomachinery whilst it is spinning at high rpm and the results will tend to be spectacular. I have heard reports of Corsairs disintegrating in mid air as a result of mishandling the supercharger controls.

As such it would not surprise me if the otherwise robust P-47 were taken down by a single burst to the turbocharger... </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


..... If I understand correctly, the turbocharging system would contain highly compressed and heated exhaust gases which still retained elements of vaporized unburnt fuel. Recipe for a dandy explosion.



<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content"> I agree that a statistical approach to pilot accounts is probably the best approach, perhaps especially with regard to weapon effectiveness. However, I'd always prefer to use data derived from test flying. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


..... That is what I did in analyzing the effects of 50cal fire upon fighter targets. Hess's book on 8AF fighter aces reproduced about 125-130 after-action reports from these fliers. I went through them all, tabulating the observed/reported damage effects. The result gave a good picture of the kinds and likelihood of various types of damage. I have no idea if Oleg picked up on my posts, but the in-game 50cal damage effect sprectrum pretty closely parallels that analysis.<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

BLUTARSKI

WWSensei
12-21-2006, 12:36 PM
Just a minor perception problem vis-a-vis energy dumping. In the Viper it's not being able to quickly dump energy that is the trait that makes the Viper preferable. It's the ability to accelerate faster than any other aircraft. The dump is merely the beginning of the true positive trait--acceleration.<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

--------------------------------------
"A lady came up to me on the street, pointed to my leather flight jacket and said, "Don't you know a cow was murdered for that jacket?" I replied menacingly, "I didn't know I left witnesses. Now, I'll have to kill you too."

JG14_Josf
12-21-2006, 02:12 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by WWSensei:
Just a minor perception problem vis-a-vis energy dumping. In the Viper it's not being able to quickly dump energy that is the trait that makes the Viper preferable. It's the ability to accelerate faster than any other aircraft. The dump is merely the beginning of the true positive trait--acceleration. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

WWSensei,

If you could elaborate from a tactics perspective then I, for one, could begin to try better to understand your minor perception problem vis-a-vis energy dumping.

Example:

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">This was the last resort when a pilot could not shake an enemy from his six. He dumped energy and hoped he would get a shot as the crowd went by. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

If a Viper were chasing a Viper (What is a Viper?) and the Viper ahead could not shake the Viper behind and then the Viper ahead ???dumped energy??? it would be relatively the same thing for the Viper behind to ???dump energy??? so the crowd wouldn???t go by and the Viper ahead wouldn???t get a shot at the Viper behind; unless, of course the Viper behind dude didn???t see the overshoot coming in time.

On the other hand: If the fighter plane ahead is a massive P-47 (twice the weight?) and behind is a Spitfire IX, then, is it reasonable to suggest that the P-47 would have a relatively difficult time ???overshooting??? the Spitfire even if the pilot of the Spitfire were half asleep (exaggeration for effect)?

That scenario has nothing whatsoever to do with acceleration since the one ahead should cut the throttle and the one behind aught to consider cutting the throttle too ??? if the idea is to avoid being forced into an overshoot where the one ahead gets ???a shot as the crown??? goes by. Prop pitch should be set to lower r.p.m. too for constant speed props as far as my investigation into that matter has manage to uncover so far (and both the 190 and 109 do this automatically when moving the throttle while the P-47 and Spitfire do not do this automatically, rather, the allied planes require the pilot to manually move the prop lever to a lower r.p.m., again, as far as I have been able to know so far.)

I???m just asking; please try not to crucify me on this.

I really don???t know what a Viper is besides the car; by dodge?

I really don???t know why deceleration isn???t a vitally important performance concern for you since it really does help me in my efforts to shake the bandit on my tail when I play the game and apparently the author of John Boyd???s biography thought something similar.

I have track files. The gondola G6 overshoots Yak???s pretty well and sprays a really nice wall of explosive projectiles as the Yak goes on by.
I can dig up some more quotes confirming a general perception that deceleration performance is, in fact, an important tactical performance advantage for the plane that has that performance advantage.

Am I a nut case?

Let me know dude I can remove any of my posts at your request. It???s easy.

Anyway: the subject here interests me and it does uncover, for me, some interesting things concerning relative turn performance for planes turning from high speed to slow speed relatively quickly or relatively slowly. No WWII plane can sustain high speed turns and high g so they all did, in fact, decelerate (unless the turned at high speed and hi g in a dive).

Thoughts?

Suggestions?

I???m not sticking things up my rectum so the most I can do is delete my posts.

Here:

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

I think I can be funny sometimes.

You can think whatever you want.

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

One more?

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

Viper2005_
12-21-2006, 02:25 PM
If you're a Serious Aviator (tm),
Viper = F-16

If you like Topgun,
Viper = the original Best of the Best

JG14_Josf
12-21-2006, 04:32 PM
F-18
Wing area: 400 ft^2
Rate of climb: 254 m/s
Weight (loaded): 16,850
Powerplant: 79kN each = 158 kN
Thrust/weight: &gt;0.95

F-16 (Viper for the serious aviators = not me I???m stupid)
Wing area: 300 ft^2
Wing loading: 430.7 kg/m^2
Rate of climb: 255m/s
Weight (loaded): 12,003 kg
Powerplant: (F100 64.9 kN / 105.7 kN; F110 76.3 kN / 128.9 kN)
Thrust/wegith: F100 .898; F110 1.095

--------------power---------weight---------T/W---------climb
F-18----------158----------16,850----------.95-----------254 m/s
F-16------105 to 129------12,003-------.898 to 1.09---255 m/s

The data above was casually taken from Wiki (no serious attempt to be accurate)

John Boyd (a serious aviator if ever one existed) constructed two fighter planes:

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Differences between the YF-16 and the YF-17 were so great that the fly-off had hardly been a contest; the YF-16 was the unanimous choice of pilots who flew both aircraft.
The results confused Boyd: E-M data and computer modeling predicted a much closer contest. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

The results of side by side combat test evaluations confused the serious aviator who built the two fighter planes based upon the most advanced computer aided aerodynamic data (E-M that is still in use today) because the most advanced data possible predicted a much closer match when, in fact, the F-16 was the unanimous choice of pilots who flew both aircraft during simulated air combat between those two similar performing planes (on paper).

What was the question for this topic?

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">I think that the greatest worth of such pilot accounts derives when evaluated in large numbers. In that case, statistical techniques can be employed to draw out information that will carry some degree of validity.

Thoughts? Comments? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Thoughts:

I think the greatest worth of combat pilot accounts of combat (simulated or real) is that combat pilots are the only human beings alive that can, in fact, measure relative combat performance of any fighter plane against any other fighter plane ??? end of story.

Comments:

I may not be as serious an aviator as many others; however ??? I???ve logged my air time and remain alive to report that experience. Flying is fun ??? seriously fun.

Responding to cleverly disguised venomous innuendo is seriously combative.

Why?

Top gun = homosexual cult movie

Kurfurst__
12-21-2006, 04:41 PM
Personally I tend to ignore single combat report experiments, they IHMO only have a fun factor if they describe the engagment in good style and add some life to the discussion... the 'why' quite simple.

- Combat reports of victories are written, surprisingly, by the victorious side, who, surprisingly, is the victor because had some sort of superiority, ergo his report will about describing that natural superiority

- Dead pilots make very reluctant and shy writers. As a matter of fact, I haven't read anyone decribing how his skull cracked open with cannon fire, so I am sure such never happened at all... About 50% of all outmanouvered pilots doesn't tell about it either, and rest probably didn't filled out a detailed victory report about how he was shot down 'I heard a big bang, and then there was smoke and fire so I jumped out'.

I'd rather rely on pilot accounts which try to be analitical, or try to describe a general trend that was experienced. Even those could be a result of false perception, depending on pilot's skill and the number of sorties he flew.<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

http://newsimg.bbc.co.uk/media/images/42333000/jpg/_42333631_puskasbudapest_ap203b.jpg
In memoriam Pusk??s Ferenc,2 April 1927 - 17 November 2006.
Nyugodjon B??k??ben - May he rest in Peace.

http://kurfurst.allaboutwarfare.com/
Kurf??rst - Your Resource for Messerschmitt Bf 109 Performance!

"The Me 109 was exceptional in turning combat. If there is a fighter plane built for turning combat , it has to be the Messer! Speedy, maneuverable (especially in the vertical) and extremely dynamic."
- Major Kozhemyako, Soviet fighter pilot of the VVS

Ignored Posters : AKA_Tagert, Wurkeri, Gibbage, LStarosta, Sergio_101.

MEGILE
12-21-2006, 04:54 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Kurfurst__:


I'd rather rely on pilot accounts which try to be analitical, or try to describe a general trend that was experienced. Even those could be a result of false perception, depending on pilot's skill and the number of sorties he flew. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Exactly, it can be hard to distinguish between the relevant and the irrelevant. Why take one pilot's view over another? There is no real scientific method to do so.
You should certainly be mindful of pilot anectodes, but imo hard data is more important.

Having said that, on these boards we put alot of faith into flight test data.
Maybe too much... consider Formula 1 cars. Think of the data all of the engineers have.
Then ask which one is the definite fastest... and then ask why doesn't that type always win.<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

http://img75.imageshack.us/img75/7683/starostauc4.jpg
If you see this man.... it's probably too late
Oleg - I was dreaming to make Meteor, but third party didn't make it finally (left unfinished)

Viper2005_
12-21-2006, 05:28 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by JG14_Josf:


The results of side by side combat test evaluations confused the serious aviator who built the two fighter planes based upon the most advanced computer aided aerodynamic data (E-M that is still in use today) because the most advanced data possible predicted a much closer match when, in fact, the F-16 was the unanimous choice of pilots who flew both aircraft during simulated air combat between those two similar performing planes (on paper).
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by JG14_Josf:
I may not be as serious an aviator as many others; however ??? I???ve logged my air time and remain alive to report that experience. Flying is fun ??? seriously fun.

Responding to cleverly disguised venomous innuendo is seriously combative.

Why?

Top gun = homosexual cult movie </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Ok, 2 points.

i) EM data (like doghouse plots and indeed most other items of performance data) simply tells you what the aeroplane is capable of. It doesn't tell you anything about its handling qualities, or how easy or difficult it is to attain the theoretical performance predicted. Pilots generally rate aeroplanes based more upon their handling qualities than any other metric. YF-16 may simply have had better control laws than YF-17. AFAIK YF-17 also had some engine issues.

ii) As for "cleverly disguised venomous innuendo", I'd suggest that you lose the paranoia. This is the internet. If I wanted to say nasty things about you I'd simply say nasty things about you.

I happen to like Topgun. It's a fun movie and it reminds me of what it was like to be young. The fact that it's very unrealistic doesn't really matter. As for it being a homosexual cult movie, so what? I'm sufficiently secure in my own sexuality not to be bothered.

I picked Viper for my internet handle because it seemed appropriate to name my virtual fighter pilot alter-ego after a fictional fighter pilot, and Viper has by far the best line in the whole movie ("Good morning gentlemen, the temperature is 110??..."). Unfortunately, my handle leads some people into the misconception that I was or am an F-16 pilot. When combined with the fact that around 99.9% of real fighter pilots claim to hate Topgun you have the reason for my "Serious Aviators (tm)" comment.

JG14_Josf
12-21-2006, 06:33 PM
OK points back at Viper (the serious aviator)

1) Contained in the quotes concerning Boyd was the term 'agility' and perhaps that is something similar to 'handling qualities' or 'conrol laws'. Who knows? "Agility" is well enough defined within those quotes; so I, for one, didn't need an interpreter.

2) Venomous does not mean nasty and combative is not paranoia. No need for another redefining job - no thanks.

Example:

The venomous words intended to misdirect the topic thread.

The nasty words intended to soil the intended recipients character.

I am often guilty of reading too much between the lines - np.

Example 2:

The exchange was combative like a continuation of a previous argument.

The exchange appeared to cause one person a sense of unreasonable fear as if that person was suffering from paranoia.

Ah???nope.

3) Thanks for the effort to explain the 'Serious Aviators (tm)' comment. I don't get it. Viper = F-16. I got that part. Thanks for that; you saved me a google search.

4) Its OK for any group to have their own cult movie. I thought it was funny - no paranoia here dude. Dream on.

The point remains:

The best fighter pilots find out how fighter planes compare in combat - the others may think they do.

WWSensei
12-21-2006, 07:34 PM
What I was trying to get at Josef is that dumping your energy in the F-16 isn't the maneuver itself. it's the preperation. The F-16 can unload quickly, but so can other aircraft. However, no aircraft accelerates as quickly, even the F-18 (Hornet is even software limited to 7G vs the 9 of the Viper but I digress).

That means if I dump my E (yes, usually as a last resort) my opponent has two basic options --1)Overshoot to my WEZ, or 2) dump E with me. If we both get fat and slow I *KNOW* I will re-stock my E in the Viper faster than he can.

So, if post-merge I've gone defensive or I'm at negative in realtion to the bandit, then my first goal is to get co-E. That is why you might dump out. To get co-E. Once we are co-E my goal switches to obtaining an E advantage. Since I know I will accelerate faster than he can then that's where I regain the advantage.

To quote from your post:
"But the lightweight fighter had such an extraordinary thrust-to-weight ratio and could recover energy so quickly that energy dumping bcame a tactic of choice rather than of desperation."

It's the recovery of energy being so quick that gives you the advantage. It's going to leave me at a low E state for far less than my opponent.<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

--------------------------------------
"A lady came up to me on the street, pointed to my leather flight jacket and said, "Don't you know a cow was murdered for that jacket?" I replied menacingly, "I didn't know I left witnesses. Now, I'll have to kill you too."

Wurkeri
12-22-2006, 02:49 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Blutarski2004:
Individual first person accounts must be treated with caution, for obvious reasons. Often they are frustratingly contradictory. For example, we all know the famous story about the P47 absorbing a huge number of 20mm hits and making it home. But Heinz Knoke relates three or four attacks on P47s in which a single burst from his 109 caused the P47 to explode. Who's telling the truth? Maybe both.

I think that the greatest worth of such pilot accounts derives when evaluated in large numbers. In that case, statistical techniques can be employed to draw out information that will carry some degree of validity.

Thoughts? Comments?
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

IMHO generally pilot's opinions are quite stricktly qualitatively so there is not much sense to try make them mean something quantitatively. Subjective opinions lack common measureable scale so in practice pretty much nothing exact can be said based on them even if there is large amount of opinions available. In addition collecting some how representative data will be very difficult, if statistical techniques are going to be used.

WWMaxGunz
12-22-2006, 03:21 AM
The planes don't fly themselves so war record is not for the planes but for the planes WITH
the pilots they had. How many stories you see written by the guys that got shot down? Okay,
I read some bits here and there including Gunther Rall interview where he says things I see
disputed about relative dive speeds. Does he have a book written before 1970? What does it
say?

I read Bud Anderson and his mates outturning 109G's but not alt or speed or what models let
alone who was in the 109's. But I did read that the 109's stayed together and that one or
two of those pilots was much better than the others. Does that mean that all of them could
turn the 109 as well as the best one or does it mean that the leader did not quickly depart
from his charges? Answer is the tale is loaded with ambiguities that are easy to ignore in
the rush to fandom or making data from whatever does not look like noise.

You can't get purely the plane out of pilot and plane vs pilot and plane not to mention
situational data.

Josf, you might want to listen to Sensei. His understanding of those planes is from a basis
you will never get, I promise.

Friendly_flyer
12-22-2006, 05:14 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by JG14_Josf:
F-16 (Viper for the serious aviators = not me I???m stupid)
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Isn't the F-16 called "Fighting Falcon"?<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

Fly friendly!

http://i8.photobucket.com/albums/a37/Friendly_flyer/WhirlwindforBoB-II.jpg

Visit No 79 Squadron vRAF (http://www.gazzamataz.com/79vRAF/)

Petter B??ckman
Norway

msalama
12-22-2006, 05:36 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">In that case, statistical techniques can be employed to draw out information that will carry some degree of validity. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yep. Agree 100%. As a matter of fact that's the only relevant way to extract any "truths" (note the quotation marks though) out of that mess IMHO...<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

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

JG14_Josf
12-22-2006, 11:39 AM
To Whom It May Concern:

When two pilots are fighting each other, according to Shaw, in mock combat - there is an opportunity to accurately discover relative combat capability quantities in the most efficient manner.

Examples abound:

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">The Fw 190 has better acceleration under all conditions of flight and this must obviously be useful during combat. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

That is quantitative. Plane A accelerates better under all conditions of flight. To say that the word ???better??? is qualitative is literally correct. The fact remains that according to the pilots conducting the side by side comparative flight tests the Spitfire acceleration was less than the Focke-Wulf acceleration under all conditions of flight. One quantity being X and the other quantity being less than X, under all conditions of flight and, of course, that must obviously be useful during combat ??? see WWSensei???s post.

In my opinion the addition of EM charts with constant lines of Ps can add a quantitative measure of acceleration (including both turn and altitude EM charts) however the absence of any such data from WWII leaves the matter of collecting such data up to other means such as in game flight tests plotting EM charts but, then again, the only thing that can confirm the accuracy of the game EM charts would be real EM charts. I do have one of Boyd???s EM turn performance charts (without constant lines of Ps) for the Mig15 vs. the F86 based upon recorded flight data from a captured Mig-15. Boyd, according to the quote offered above, wanted to know why the F-86 did so well against the Mig-15 in actual combat. Here is the chart again:

http://mysite.verizon.net/res0l0yx/IL2Flugbuch/Corner%20time.jpg

Note the white area (I colored that in).

The F-86 had a lower corner speed than the Mig-15. That fact apparently escaped the notice of the author of Boyd???s biography. I???m pretty sure that the white area did not escape the notice of John Boyd, Chuck Yeager, or any of the Top Guns flying F-86s or Migs in the Korean ???Police Action???.

Take the advice of Robert Shaw and utilize the best means of collecting relative combat performance information i.e. Comparative flight tests used to measure comparative flight data. It makes too much sense? You can do whatever you please.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">In doing advanced conceptual design work on the lightweight fighter, he went over all his notes from the past, from as far back as Korea. He remembered his early E-M work and how difficult it was to prepare accurate E-M charts for the F-86. He remembered the F-86's countless battles with MiGs. He remembered how, on paper, the MiG was a superior aircraft in almost every respect. But the F-86 had a ten-to-one kill ratio against the MiG. Why?
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

The white area explains one advantage the F-86 had in high speed (corner velocity) performance over the Mig-15. Which plane had the better T/W?

A high speed turn performance advantage is colored in white.

Something like this without the graphics:

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">At this stage, I still did not know whether he was alone or whether there were still other Yaks in the area. Meanwhile, I had reached sufficient speed to do battle. I could observe my opponent, now the chances were even and it boiled down to flying ability. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Who knows?

You guys can go ahead and rely upon fight test data recorded by factory test pilots and I can too. My preference is for relative combat performance quantities measured by the pilots who know how to perform in combat; apples for apples.

Like this:

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">They used their hands to demonstrate combat maneuvers and they used highly technical fighter-pilot terminology such as "****-hot" to describe the YF-16, and it did not take long for a consensus to emerge. They preferred the YF-16 because it could perform what they called a "buttonhook turn." </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

No the pilot didn???t pull out a chart and represent how a button hook turn can be performed on a graph. The F-16 could perform it and the F-18 couldn???t. Not on graph paper from a factory test pilot.

Like this:

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Incredible aileron turns were possible that would have torn the wings from a Bf 109 and badly strained the arm muscles of any Spitfire pilot trying to follow. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Or this:

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">...the Spitfire Mk IX was still to be left standing by the Focke-Wulf's half-roll and dive! </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Not on graph paper. Not from a factory test pilot.

An EM chart with constant lines of Ps could offer much more information than anything currently available in this flight sim endeavor to compete in and out of the virtual reality.

On to what interests me most in this thread:

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">The F-16 can unload quickly, but so can other aircraft. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

The aircraft that can unload quicker (quantity of deceleration performance being greater than) has the advantage when performing or avoiding an overshoot ??? my point.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Since I know I will accelerate faster than he can then that's where I regain the advantage.
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

May I point out that the above is true in addition to the advantage of forcing an overshoot whereby the enemy is behind, in range, and able to shoot you down, and then, the enemy is ahead, in range, and being shot down because one plane has a deceleration advantage.

If the overshoot does not produce a big fat target to shoot down from a situation where you are a big fat target to shoot down, then, having the acceleration advantage does help like this:

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">The Fw 190 has better acceleration under all conditions of flight and this must obviously be useful during combat. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Obviously; when your enemy is able to close in for a shot at will or extend out of range at will, then, that is a painfully obvious example of superiority in fighter combat.

Perhaps my point concerning the advantage of deceleration is as obvious to the readership. I???m confident that the players being shot down by me after they are overshot are, at least, aware of something concerning deceleration performance. I may be reading too much in between the lines.

When I am forced to overshoot (not often) I start sweating out the impending solution.

I???m odd.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">That means if I dump my E (yes, usually as a last resort) my opponent has two basic options --1)Overshoot to my WEZ, or 2) dump E with me. If we both get fat and slow I *KNOW* I will re-stock my E in the Viper faster than he can. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I read the Boyd biography from cover to cover. I got the part about the F-16 ???agility??? advantage ??? thanks.

My point here is to point out that pilot accounts concerning fighter combat, according to Shaw, can illustrate very good examples of how to use one planes dive acceleration, zoom climb, and roll advantage against another planes weaknesses (less dive acceleration, less roll acceleration, and greater deceleration in a zoom climb.)

Those illustrations do not appear on factory test charts.

When one of the best natural born fighter pilots in WWII speaks, then, some people actually listen ??? Shaw did.

You can do as you please.

War record:

F-86 had a ten-to-one kill ratio against the MiG (according to one source).

Fight in the vertical and stay fast.

Is this my ???opinion????

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">But we could outperform them with the F-86's slab tail, we could turn faster than they could, we could dive faster, and we could pull out quicker. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Mahurin etc. (http://www.acepilots.com/planes/f86_sabre.html)

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">We didn???t try to climb with them, because they could climb higher than we could. We tried to keep the combat on those elements where we had an advantage. Whenever they were gaining an advantage, we could always leave, we could always turn around and dive away.
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">When you talk to a pilot, especially a guy like me who has a lot of years on him, his stories get better by the moment. The next thing you know, his airplane was a dud, but due to sheer combat capability he was able to shoot down twenty enemy aircraft.

Just after the war, a North Korean pilot named Ro Kim Suk defected with a MiG-15 and landed at Kimpo airport just outside of Seoul. The MiG-15 was sent to Wright Field, and Chuck Yeager did the performance tests on it, which revealed that the F-86s was slightly faster. The Sabre had lots of combat capability that the MiG didn???t. Above all, it had the creature comforts that I talked about earlier. The MiG-15 wasn???t as good as the F-86, but all in all it was a pretty good airplane. A lot of them have survived, and once in a while, F-86s and MiGs show up at air shows, and it???s quite a sight to see them. Especially when you realize that one of them used to be an enemy.
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

See the white area in the EM chart:

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">But we could outperform them with the F-86's slab tail, we could turn faster than they could, we could dive faster, and we could pull out quicker. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Now look at the red area:

http://mysite.verizon.net/res0l0yx/IL2Flugbuch/Wing%20Loading.jpg

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Incredible aileron turns were possible that would have torn the wings from a Bf 109 and badly strained the arm muscles of any Spitfire pilot trying to follow. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

The white area does not exist in the game. Once a game models the F-86 vs. Mig-15, then, the proof will be in graphical form.

I can wait.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">You needed some dogfighting, some idea of closure rates and turn rates, how to kill air speed, and how to gain air speed. (Blesse) </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Blesse: Air-to-air fight was like a game. You had to know the rules. You had to know what you could do and what he could do. We had pretty good information on the MiG. It was a point defense airplane, smaller and lighter than the Sabre; it didn???t carry as much fuel. Consequently it could out-climb us at any altitude and had more than double our rate of climb above 25,000 feet. It could outrun us at any altitude. So a MiG pilot had a lot to work with. But if you???re an F-86 pilot you had a couple of things you could try with this gopher, and one of them is turn. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">It???s a matter of training and practice. What if he turns into you and gets too close, and you can't make that turn? You gotta know what to do. You gotta know that the nose goes up, and let him come down, and then when you come around you???ll still be behind him. If you try to stay on his plane, you???re gonna stall your aircraft. Pretty soon you???re in trouble because he???s gonna reverse his turn, and you???re gonna be on the outside going away from him, and you???re going to have him behind you. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Nose goes up = vertical

Trying to stay on the same plane and stalling = sustained turn = horizontal.

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

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">"Put your nose down and keep four "G???s" on that thing and we???ll be okay. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Prediction:

Mig 15 simulated as Angles/Energy fighter extraordinaire. F-86 modeled as hit and run or team tactics fighter = double inferior. No high speed turn performance advantage (white area). The F-86 will be double inferior. The F-86 players will learn to deal with it ??? hit and run and team tactics. Energy fighting will consist of:

Energy fighting with the Mig-15 (the energy fighter)

Or

F-86 entering the energy fight with a huge energy advantage attacking once from a position advantage. One zoom climb and one more pass before diving away to escape into AAA, Clouds, or drag for friends before all the energy advantage ???BLEEDS??? off as if the plane burns up air mass or some other odd thing like ???buffeting??? ???stalling??? at speed well above corner where the wing creates high drag from stalling even at high speed when the wing produced very high lift force at relatively low angles of attack.

Some players point to tactical descriptions of advantages held by the F-86 (high speed turn = lower corner) on record. Other players point to climb performance charts where the Mig-15 is obviously superior.

Rinse and repeat.

Blutarski2004
12-22-2006, 12:40 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Wurkeri:
IMHO generally pilot's opinions are quite stricktly qualitatively so there is not much sense to try make them mean something quantitatively. Subjective opinions lack common measureable scale so in practice pretty much nothing exact can be said based on them even if there is large amount of opinions available. In addition collecting some how representative data will be very difficult, if statistical techniques are going to be used. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


..... I don't disagree with your comments , Wurkeri. Taken individually, it is unwise to accord much validity to a pilot report - too many variables. But if 200 or 300 reports testify to the same particular phenomenon, then it behooves us to consider that there may be some flame within the smoke.<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

BLUTARSKI

WOLFMondo
12-24-2006, 04:01 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Kurfurst__:

- Dead pilots make very reluctant and shy writers. As a matter of fact, I haven't read anyone decribing how his skull cracked open with cannon fire, so I am sure such never happened at all... About 50% of all outmanouvered pilots doesn't tell about it either, and rest probably didn't filled out a detailed victory report about how he was shot down 'I heard a big bang, and then there was smoke and fire so I jumped out'.
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/agreepost.gif

Its a first, don't make a habit of it http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

Capt Eric Brown says: "I found in general the default joystick settings tended to be oversensitive. With my recommended settings it will give people a real feeling of how they actually flew."

Friendly_flyer
12-24-2006, 04:44 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by horseback:
Context is very important. A pilot's report or anecdote tells you what he observed & experienced. Obviously, with the official WWII pilot reports, as opposed to pilot memoirs, we are dealing with the immediate 'intelligence.
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Very, very good and enlightening post there, Horseback! The point of the overall tactical picture and the ignorance of the pilots as too the opposite sides planes explains quite a few things!<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

Fly friendly!

http://i8.photobucket.com/albums/a37/Friendly_flyer/WhirlwindforBoB-II.jpg

Visit No 79 Squadron vRAF (http://www.gazzamataz.com/79vRAF/)

Petter B??ckman
Norway

tools4foolsA
12-24-2006, 05:04 AM
<pre class="ip-ubbcode-code-pre"> About 50% of all outmanouvered pilots doesn't tell about it either, and rest probably didn't filled out a detailed victory report about how he was shot down 'I heard a big bang, and then there was smoke and fire so I jumped out'. </pre>

In one of the books I read (don;t have it here now, but collection of stories from various pilots) the author selected stories of misfortune of the individual pilots; the pilots in those stories get in troubles usually because of own mistakes, not in manouvering or due to an inferior plane, but rather not being aware of enemy aircraft, misidentifying enemy aircraft, looking elsewhere and being surprised by other enemy plane, etc, etc. Bigger numbers of opponents were factors mentioned as well.

Seldom they quote the inferor performance of their plane as the culprit of being shot down or getting in trouble.


*****

jasonbirder
12-24-2006, 05:27 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Seldom they quote the inferor performance of their plane as the culprit of being shot down or getting in trouble </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

In truth, despite the obsession with FM's that exist on thse forums...in the vast majority of combats diffeences in a planes performance had little or no influence on the eventual vicor and loser...
Most planes were shot down by enemies they never saw...and even when they weren't Pilots rarely pushed their planes to the edges of their performance envelopes as we do here in the game...

msalama
12-24-2006, 05:36 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Pilots rarely pushed their planes to the edges of their performance envelopes as we do here in the game... </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yup. The good old self-preservation instinct kicking in.<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

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

Hippies FTW!

WWSensei
12-24-2006, 09:09 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Friendly_flyer:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by JG14_Josf:
F-16 (Viper for the serious aviators = not me I???m stupid)
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Isn't the F-16 called "Fighting Falcon"? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

No Viper driver I knew ever called it the "Fighting Falcon" or even "Falcon". That was a designation made up by some unimagintive staff turd in the Pentagon. "Viper" was what the Warsaw Pact called the F-16 and it was a much better nickname for the F-16 so it became the defacto--albeit unofficial--designation.<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

--------------------------------------
"A lady came up to me on the street, pointed to my leather flight jacket and said, "Don't you know a cow was murdered for that jacket?" I replied menacingly, "I didn't know I left witnesses. Now, I'll have to kill you too."

WWSensei
12-24-2006, 09:16 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by tools4foolsA:
In one of the books I read (don;t have it here now, but collection of stories from various pilots) the author selected stories of misfortune of the individual pilots; the pilots in those stories get in troubles usually because of own mistakes, not in manouvering or due to an inferior plane, but rather not being aware of enemy aircraft, misidentifying enemy aircraft, looking elsewhere and being surprised by other enemy plane, etc, etc. Bigger numbers of opponents were factors mentioned as well.

Seldom they quote the inferor performance of their plane as the culprit of being shot down or getting in trouble.
***** </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

In every debrief from either real missions or mock dogfights real pilots, when analyzing mission failures always started with "What did I do wrong?" For each type of mission there are probably 1000 things that could be said to answer that question. I never heard one say "my aircraft was porked". Even if they had aircraft equipment failure the general response was "I should have pre-flighted better."

Virtual pilots blame the FM first. Doesn't seem to matter what sim it is. As long as a v-pilot continously looks to blame everything else but his/her own actions or inactions they will never learn.<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

--------------------------------------
"A lady came up to me on the street, pointed to my leather flight jacket and said, "Don't you know a cow was murdered for that jacket?" I replied menacingly, "I didn't know I left witnesses. Now, I'll have to kill you too."

GR142-Pipper
12-24-2006, 11:13 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by WWSensei:
Virtual pilots blame the FM first. </div></BLOCKQUOTE> The better pilots pretty much know the difference between pilot abilities and flight/damage/weapons models that are off. Again, aircraft reputations (virtual and real) get established by many pilots over a long period of time. (to wit: 4.01/.02/.03/.04/.05) have been out for quite a while now.)

GR142-Pipper

La7_brook
12-24-2006, 11:24 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by GR142-Pipper:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Megile:
[QUOTE]Originally posted by GR142-Pipper:

Please. Because some pilots are better and more experienced than others. Who would you believe...the opinion of a seasoned combat veteran or a rookie just out of flight school?

</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Nice theory.. but it doesn't work in practise. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>Respectfully, it works perfectly in practice.
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">If I show you a pilot quote of a spitfire pilot saying the spitfire outturns the BF-109 at slow speed, kurfurst will show you (and rightly so) a quote from Closterman saying just the opposite.

Like wise, one experte in particular is quoted as saying P-38s were easy kills. Yet another pilot quote will say P-38 were tough opponents.

For every quote you have saying the P-51 could beat the BF-109, there is a quote that the BF-109 is better. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>The war record and thousands of pilot accounts say otherwise. The P-51 was definitely better.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Now ofcourse you agenda will suit which quotes you bring to the table. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>There is no agenda. Just facts. You fail to make the distinction between a few quotes and an aircraft's REPUTATION. Reputations are not established on a few quotes one way or the other or by limited usage. They're established over time by many, many aircrews who flew a particular aircraft in combat conditions. In the case of WWII fighters, these reputations were established on YEARS of use.

It's really amazing to read these forums where the issue of equivalency is offered when on one side there are many, many testimonials and sterling war records while on the other side there are a limited number of contrarians that say otherwise. The scales just don't balance.

GR142-Pipper </div></BLOCKQUOTE> its easy to find acounts of planes out turning each athere piper /from graf @ grislawski /death of ernst suss, ernst suss with experience from hunders of fighter to fighter combat situations during two years on the eastern front ,he had very little difficlty in out turning one of the p51,s an exact burst of fire from short distance ripped the 354th FG mustang apart, ernst suss could register his sixty eighth victory. in the next moment serveral other mustangs sat on his tail .suss bf109 shook heavily as the .50c bullets hit their target .suss jettisoned the conopy and bailed out other german pilots saw one of the mustangs close in as he hung in his straps, if u look u can find acounts , so plane spc,s are the ownly way too match planes , and that mustang mite been looking the a there way too // one more from same book // the mustangs wheeled over and attacked the messerschmitt from from behind graf made a sharp turn poistioned himself behind one of the mustangs ,he did this without any diffculty ,the mustang filled entire windscreen a short burst of fire the 20mm and the two 13mm,s set the american plane burning ,while the other two mustang sought refuge into a cloud.the remiaining amercian fighter formation raced againest both 109,s the next moment graf found himself involved in turning combat , he took out the last of his aircraft turning climbing and diving,by sideslipping he ticked one of the mustangs to over take him,he pressed the firing button to the cannon .large parts of the mustang were torn off,and the american fighter

WOLFMondo
12-24-2006, 01:50 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by GR142-Pipper:
To operational squadron pilots, pilot anectodes ARE hard data. The very best kind.
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Nah, test data from a pilot who's flown both types and can write a good report is the best datahttp://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

Capt Eric Brown says: "I found in general the default joystick settings tended to be oversensitive. With my recommended settings it will give people a real feeling of how they actually flew."

GR142-Pipper
12-24-2006, 04:00 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by WOLFMondo:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by GR142-Pipper:
To operational squadron pilots, pilot anectodes ARE hard data. The very best kind.
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Nah, test data from a pilot who's flown both types and can write a good report is the best datahttp://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>That's certainly good information, no doubt. But my trust is with the operational combat pilots who do it for a living (literally)...day in, day out...and often for years. If you walk into any real squadron ready room you'll hear much the same.

GR142-Pipper

-HH-Quazi
12-24-2006, 10:44 PM
Probably the most productive thread I have ever read here in these forums. Everyone participating had some kind of insight and everyone gave the others thoughts on the subject consideration. Way to go all of you. Some great information on a touchy subject. I have seen too many of these threads turn into garbage. But this one is the exception to the rule it seems. KUDOS one & all!<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

<center>http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v289/HH_Beebop/Personal/HHLoGo3.jpg

Hunters' Magnum-PC House (https://magnum-pc.com/Search/External/)
So You're Interested In Water Cooling? (http://www.xtremesystems.org/forums/forumdisplay.php?f=70)
Welcome To The Dogz Hound Pound! (http://www.k9squadrons.com)
Mission 4Today (http://www.mission4today.com/)

JG14_Josf
12-25-2006, 04:22 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">That's certainly good information, no doubt. But my trust is with the operational combat pilots who do it for a living (literally)...day in, day out...and often for years. If you walk into any real squadron ready room you'll hear much the same. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I can't see any other way to know, without any reasonable doubt, which plane has any combat advantage or disadvantage.

I suppose my bias is reinforced due to flying experience and reading. When Boyd trained pilots, according to my recollection from reading, it was communicated that losses of life during training was to be expected as a measure of effective improvement. ???Pushing the envelope??? in peace time, if I remember right, was a poor substitute for actual combat in wartime.

What the engineers and the manufacturers produce, and the test pilots test, for use in fighter combat is a separate and distinct reality from fighter combat one is one thing and the other is another thing entirely.

There are no short cuts. The best of the best fighter pilots will push the envelope and accurately determine a fighter planes true combat effectiveness and there is no other way. There is no way to find that information by statistically analyzing the average pilots abilities in wartime against the average pilot???s abilities on the other side. Statistical information of that nature measure statistical information of that nature and that is it. A conclusion based upon average pilot competence does no good when you???re the best you can be in the statistically better plane and your opponent shoots you down in the statistically less capable plane ??? every single time until you die or you give up.

You can go back and work on new tactics based upon analysis of your weaknesses and the opponents strengths however if you keep getting shot down, then, as far as you are concerned you and your plane is inferior and as far as you are concerned the statistics are wrong and as far as your performance is concerned your statistical contribution adjusts the statistics in favor of the oppositions plane. Their plane appears better because you suck.

Statistics do not lie. Interpreting statistics falsely is accomplished by people on purpose or through simple ignorance.

If you continue to have your *** handed to you in your statistically better plane, then, try trading planes with the person who continuously shoots you down.

Researching the tactics used (and modern data collection used to debrief mock combat is, if I am not wrong, much like having track files ??? the modern equipment records much more and much more accurately) researching, with track files, the tactics used by your opponent may help defeat your opponent when your opponent is flying your statistically better plane while you fly his statistically less capable plane. What happens if you continue to get your *** handed to you?

Well???the statistics lied.

Or

Maybe you are not a fighter pilot compared to your opponent and therefore you have no business being a part of the statistics. You, due to your incapacity as a fighter pilot, screw up the statistics. Take your destroyed ego and work behind a desk or something.

Here is a suggestion: Simulate fighter combat honestly.

All the same ego busting statistical falsehoods exist in the simulated world as they do in the real world only without any real penalty for inflated egos. Isn???t that funny?

What happens when two pilots draw up nearly equal?

I have an example from a history book titled Fighter Aces of the Luftwaffe

It is written by Col. Raymond F. Toliver, USAF (ret.) and Trevor J. Constable
Forward by Adolf (Dolfo) Galland.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">The authors have had access to Molders' logbook, and have found it a model of precise record-keeping. The ace's handwriting is almost like engraving, and reflects his well ordered personality. The logbook also provides an opportunity to draw an interesting parallel with the career of American ace Robert S. Johnson, who scored twenty-seven victories in Europe.
Bob Johnson was one of the quickest and deadliest of America's aces, and Werner Molders was one of Germany's best. The portion of Molders's logbook reproduced here deals with his victories over French, British and Belgian-flown aircraft of all types, RAF Spitfires, and Hurricanes make up the largest portion of his bag. After careful perusal of the dates and tallies in this log, it becomes obvious that Molders trod no easy pathway. Many loose ideas concerning the high scores of the German aces are laid to rest by this historic record.
This statistical summary has been selected from a large number in the possession of the authors, because it provides a fair and rational comparison of two leading fighter pilots. The accomplishments of each were attained under conditions of attack, on the Western Front in each case.
Johnson required ninety-one missions to score twenty-seven confirmed victories. Molders needed 140 combat missions to confirm his first twenty-seven victories. Johnson thus emerges very favorably from the comparison, especially considering that Molders was already a fighter ace of the Spanish Civil War, with fourteen victories in 1938. This was long before Johnson ever learned to fly. Molders began World War II as an accomplished ace. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I add that as one measure of where my viewpoint on statistics is founded. Loose ideas can be drawn from statistics.

Had Robert S. Johnson flown against a Spitfire IX, for example, the pilot of the Spitfire had better be up to the task.

Had the war been fought between an army of Robert S. Johnson clones flying P-47C fighter planes against an army of clones of the average British pilot flying Spitfire IXs, well, statistics would be generated.

When it actually comes down to analyzing what advantages or strengths can be utilized through tactics to defeat weakness there is one best way to gather that vital information.

And the best ones to gather the most precise information from the best way to gather that vital information is the best of the best fighter pilots; until a better one comes along and rewrites the statistics.

If the game models a P-47 that is nothing more than a hit and run or team tactics, double inferior, target, then, there won???t be any Robert S. Johnson???s recording examples of energy fights in the game. If, for example, the game???s P-47C does not have a dive acceleration advantage due to its higher mass and higher density ??? which is rather much higher for a Fighter Plane in WWII.

Fighter Planes

Not bombers.

Fighter Planes

Not targets

If you really want to know which plane is better than another plane, then, you will have to find someone capable of finding that information.

That is the only way until someone better comes along. Fighter pilots know this ??? read Boyd. Fighter pilots have egos for a reason or they pretend.

msalama
12-25-2006, 04:41 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">If the game models a P-47 that... If, for example, the game???s P-47C does not have... </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

And you've undoubtedly tested the new v4.07 Jug as well, haven't you?

Please be brief if / when you answer.<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

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

Hippies FTW!

JG14_Josf
12-25-2006, 04:57 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">And you've undoubtedly tested the new v4.07 Jug as well, haven't you? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

No

WWMaxGunz
12-25-2006, 05:57 AM
By the freaking chart, the F-86 matches MiG-15 sustained turn at about mach .74.
Faster than that, the F-86 beats the MiG-15 sustained turn. BUT, the MiG might just climb a
bit and yoyo and turn that stall chart into just another ALTITUDE-SPECIFIC (that's right,
those E-M charts are only good at one alt each chart. The curves do differ differently from
plane to plane, no single E-M chart will show you what alt to pick your fight in if you can.

Same old misinterpretations of the same old charts and quotes. We get a full moon again?

Sergio_101
12-25-2006, 07:14 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by WOLFMondo:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Kurfurst__:

- Dead pilots make very reluctant and shy writers. As a matter of fact, I haven't read anyone decribing how his skull cracked open with cannon fire, so I am sure such never happened at all... About 50% of all outmanouvered pilots doesn't tell about it either, and rest probably didn't filled out a detailed victory report about how he was shot down 'I heard a big bang, and then there was smoke and fire so I jumped out'.
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/agreepost.gif

Its a first, don't make a habit of it http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

The huge volume of US combat reports makes it essential for
Kurfie/Barbie to discount those reports.
They point to the obvious inferiority
of the German aircraft in the face of superior
P-47 and P-51 machines.

To sum it up, the above is obvious, dead men tell no tales.
But with the massive kill-loss ratio enjoyed by
USAAF pilots the living tell the tale of facts.
Barbi just can't deal with facts.........

Sergio<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

P-51s may not have won the war, but they did not loose it.
Loosing the war was left to the Bf-109s and Fw-190s. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/winky.gif

tools4foolsA
12-25-2006, 10:46 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">The huge volume of US combat reports makes it essential for
Kurfie/Barbie to discount those reports. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


Interesting. Can you point me to where Kurfy discounted US reports in particular?
I might have missed that.

******

jasonbirder
12-26-2006, 03:37 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">The huge volume of US combat reports makes it essential for
Kurfie/Barbie to discount those reports.
They point to the obvious inferiority
of the German aircraft in the face of superior
P-47 and P-51 machines </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Interesting...I think the whole point of this thread was that pilot reports from both sides need to be treated with some care, as they are so subjective.
It has been quite rightly been pointed out that it is easy to find annecdotal evidence for the superiority of almost any plane vs its contemporaries...
If you, as you say you are coming across an overwhelming number of American reports...you would do well to broaden your source base...oh and its not a suprise American reports predominate if you only read the English language is it?

msalama
12-26-2006, 04:22 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">They point to the obvious inferiority
of the German aircraft in the face of superior
P-47 and P-51 machines. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

"Obvious"? http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/88.gif Please. Your nationalism is showing, dear.

Now I kindly suggest you brush up on that history knowledge of yours, or in other words, do by all means check out what role did Allied _numerical_ air superiority play in the late WWII warfare. HTH http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

PS. And nope - I fly Red only myself so no Lufty bias here whatsoever...<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

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

Hippies FTW!