PDA

View Full Version : American planes



Simmer2005
04-11-2005, 09:36 PM
Oleg,
Great sim and hats off.
One question though.
Why do the American planes flight models seem to get worse with each patch? I find it real difficult to beleive that a dog fighting plane would go into a complete stall with breathing on the stick the wrong way but yet that is what has happened to the American planes. (Mainly the P51).

If this is realy how the planes reacted, I am realy surprised that production would be able to keep up with the loss of planes and pilot that would have happened back then and pilots who were not lucky enough to get out and bail before meeting the ground. If this is realy the case then why did all the Americans salivate to get a P51? Just wondering as to why the demise of these planes.

And before you all get started I know already,
Learn how to fly
Get your facts straight
Wheres the proof.........Yada Yada Yada

You can take any Russian, German, Spitfire, or Japanese plane and jerk the bejezzers out of the stick and be ok but not in the American ones. If the P51 was the best dog fighter that America had, then why can it not dog fight? If the F4U was so fared by the Japanese, why does it not climb and speed through the air and bounce the Zero before it knows what hit it?
Just some questions.

As I said in the beginning, great sim and all, just would like some feed back on the American planes.

faustnik
04-11-2005, 09:59 PM
Hmmm...well the UK, USSR, Japanese planes and Bf109 were designed with the concept of dogfighting in mind. So, was the P-39 and P-40. The later American planes, P-51, P-47 and P-38 were designed to be superior performers, so speed was their strength. The same was true for the German Fw-190. Fly the Fw190 and you find it too won't stand for jerking the stick around. Once you set your mind to using speed as your primary weapon, you will start liking the late USAAF planes a lot better. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

There are some members of the forum here that can give you a much better technical answer but, that's my understanding of the basic design concept behind those planes.

RedNeckerson
04-11-2005, 10:04 PM
Faustnik, can you give me some pointers on flying the FW190?

And what is this JG/77 outfit?

Simmer2005
04-11-2005, 10:09 PM
Try diving and using speed and the wings snap off or go into a instant black out at 10 degree pitch. Plus the spitfire can out run a F4U nd P51. So can the BF109. seen it to many times. So the speed thing is pretty much thrown out the door. Besides, the P51 was a Escort plane. How are they to use the speed when they are with the heavies. They needed to dog fight and they did with ease back then. There were no blinding speeds when rolling with the heavies.

faustnik
04-11-2005, 10:16 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by RedNeckerson:
Faustnik, can you give me some pointers on flying the FW190?

And what is this JG/77 outfit? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I already gave you all my pointers, go fast don't turn. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif I hear those Jg77 guys are the Bad News Bears of the IL-2 world.

p1ngu666
04-11-2005, 10:34 PM
p51 was a low level army cooperation plane http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif... for the british http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

american planes are TEAM planes, u haveto fly in a team... 190 is same

u can mix it up in those forgotten usa planes, p40,p39,f6f http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

The_EDF_Legacy
04-11-2005, 11:27 PM
Speed is your best friend as they said. However, throttle back when diving because otherwise you'll shed your wings. I can dive at around 800KPH and not shed while flying straight, though anything about 700KPH WILL shed if you try to pull up quite hard.

jurinko
04-12-2005, 12:19 AM
IMHO the best US dogfighter was P-40 or F6F, not P-51

carguy_
04-12-2005, 05:32 AM
IMO best dogfighter in highest realism difficulty settings is the P47.I kick @ss in it everytime I fly.Mostly it`s drop some bombs,strafe the airfield and shoot one or two Messers.

However for flying skills I`d like to point out that the biggest factor is knowing your plane.The Zero is new for me.I stall and get killed in it from time o time,nothing like that happened with old IL2 planes since like a year.

& be sure the F4U does toasts out of IJN.I know because everytime the IJN even before it starts fighting it is already outnumbered because one burst kills the pilot or renders it virtually uncontrollable.

Badsight.
04-12-2005, 05:54 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Simmer2005:
If the P51 was the best dog fighter . . . . . . . <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>thats a big if

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Simmer2005:
that America had, then why can it not dog fight? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>it cant ? , tell that to the last Bf-109 i shot down, maybe its not the plane but your assumption of what it should be . but dont worry , it seems to be common

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Simmer2005:
If the F4U was so fared by the Japanese, why does it not climb and speed through the air and bounce the Zero before it knows what hit it?. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>oh yes , now there is total domination , no Zero in FB can match the Corsairs speed

p1ngu666
04-12-2005, 07:34 AM
i think the zero's control forces are mapped too tas, so as u go higher its only got a small advantage in turn http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-indifferent.gif

Bearcat99
04-12-2005, 07:51 AM
The P-51 is fine... You just have to fly the plane to it's strenths, shoot at or slightly out of convergence, do not pull hard in steep dives... or even when turning level if going above 325mph, keep your speed up.... use your flaps and trim in maneuvers, but be carefull with the flaps they will get stuck if you deploy them while going too fast or leave them deployed for too long, or go beyond combat flaps in any of the above cases, and THINK when you fly. Try to anticipate where your target is going so you can maneuver to THAT point instead of where he is. The American planes are fine.. you just need more practice... as do I and most of us here. That is the beauty of the sim... it is a constant learning process.

3.JG51_BigBear
04-12-2005, 09:08 AM
I'd agree that the P-51 is one of the most effective planes in the game. What I found helpful when learning to fly the high energy fighters like Focke Wulfs and P-51s was to think of the air battle taking place on a much large field. In a close turn and burn dogfight you start to see the playing field as the narrow point around which you and the other guy are turning. In a high powered machine like a P-51 or a jet you need to extend the playing field. You always want to have some distance between yourself and your opponent until its time to make the attack. This gives you more options and lets you decide when the fight is really going to start. Just be patient and wait for the right opportunity.

geetarman
04-12-2005, 09:10 AM
Simmer, maybe you're a bit new to this sim and if so, welcome! The P-51 is not a dogfighter on par with a Zero or Spitfire or even a 109 at lower speeds. The quicker you accept that fact, the faster you'll become proficient in the Mustang.

It is one of the top planes in the game, be sure. Learn the quirks about it and learn it's strengths. If you become pretty good in it, you'll be pretty hard to down and can get many kills in it.

Re: dogfighting in it: I remember a quote from Mustang ace Bud Anderson that went along the lines of, "I hardly ever turned with the Germans." Not what you might expect from a pilot that flew the plane that "won the war." I think about that every time I merge with a 109 and it prevents me from the impulsive urge to yank back on the stick and try to "dogfight" the guy.

Later USAAF planes are basically "cruisers." Think of them like a Camaro or Mustang. Fast but not extremely agile.

Speed (210mph+ at all times in the combat area), altitude, gunnery skill, and above all, patience are the things you must use to be successful.

Keep working at it.

tigertalon
04-12-2005, 10:40 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Simmer2005:
Try diving and using speed and the wings snap off or go into a instant black out at 10 degree pitch. Plus the spitfire can out run a F4U nd P51. So can the BF109. seen it to many times. So the speed thing is pretty much thrown out the door. Besides, the P51 was a Escort plane. How are they to use the speed when they are with the heavies. They needed to dog fight and they did with ease back then. There were no blinding speeds when rolling with the heavies. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Hi simmer2005

P51s usualy flew higher than the bombers, some 2k higher. High alt escort P47 were even higher. This allowed them to dive on their opponets which were climbing to intercept the bombers.

P51, which flew at 8000m, 2000m above the bombers, with speed 300 kph, could easily reach 700 kph in a shallow dive to 6000 m where the bombers were.

And, trust me on that, at 700 kph mustang is the most maneouvreable plane in this sim, second maybe only to Fw190D9. For example Bf109 (especially K4) is like a diesel locomotive at that speeds, while zero... Zero, what zero?

So, there were blinding speeds when escorting BUFFs.

VW-IceFire
04-12-2005, 03:43 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Simmer2005:
Oleg,
Great sim and hats off.
One question though.
Why do the American planes flight models seem to get worse with each patch? I find it real difficult to beleive that a dog fighting plane would go into a complete stall with breathing on the stick the wrong way but yet that is what has happened to the American planes. (Mainly the P51).

If this is realy how the planes reacted, I am realy surprised that production would be able to keep up with the loss of planes and pilot that would have happened back then and pilots who were not lucky enough to get out and bail before meeting the ground. If this is realy the case then why did all the Americans salivate to get a P51? Just wondering as to why the demise of these planes.

And before you all get started I know already,
Learn how to fly
Get your facts straight
Wheres the proof.........Yada Yada Yada

You can take any Russian, German, Spitfire, or Japanese plane and jerk the bejezzers out of the stick and be ok but not in the American ones. If the P51 was the best dog fighter that America had, then why can it not dog fight? If the F4U was so fared by the Japanese, why does it not climb and speed through the air and bounce the Zero before it knows what hit it?
Just some questions.

As I said in the beginning, great sim and all, just would like some feed back on the American planes. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
While I love the Tempest and the Spitfire as fighters, the Mustang is another one of my favorites and arguably one of the best Allied fighters you can put yourself in. In a late 1944 early 1945 scenario the Mustang rules supreme.

Its not a dogfighter. Never was. Historically not a dogfighter. When a USAAF pilot says they were dogfighting...its more of a general term of speech than actual practice. Its not WWI dogfighting with lots of twists and turns anyways.

Here's some pointers. Unless you're flying 8 hours to Berlin, forget the fuel tanks and the 100% fuel load. You want to select 25% fuel in the Mustang in any conventional dogfight server or even in most single player missions. The Mustang historically was very dangerous with a full fuel load as the rear tank shifted the COG too far back. In game its not so pronounced...but the weight of all that fuel is a killer.

Secondly, the Mustang is most at home where other fighters are not. At 400kph and above the only planes that will stay with you in a manuever is the FW190 and the Corsair. At this speed, your roll rate and turn are best. At 600kph you can snap the wing off too...so becareful, but love that speed.

Basically in a fight you do this. Start above your enemy. Dive on them...trail them. If they dive away, you can easily follow and try and get a shot off. Disengage by pulling gently back on the stick (at 600 kph you want to be gentle even when the elevator has no problems moving the plane) and zooming back to alt. The Mustang really zooms back to altitude no problem. Then re-engage quickly and hit them again. This is how its done. The FW190 and Corsair also do it but the Mustang is just very smooth and capable the whole way through.

This is why the Mustang was one of the best fighters of the war.

When USAAF pilots said they could dogfight in it...thats because they were coming from bigger planes like the P-47 and P-38. The Mustang is more on par with the 109 and 190 when it comes to manuvering across the board so thats why you may have that impression. Still not a dogfighter http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

lrrp22
04-12-2005, 04:51 PM
Hey Ice,

ETO/MTO Mustang pilots did in fact dogfight quite readily. Those in the Pacific did not. While not a dogfighter compared to the Japanese planes or the Spitfire, the Mustang did, as you said, match up well with the later German types.

3.JG51_BigBear
04-12-2005, 06:56 PM
There were very few planes in the mid to late war era that were true dogfighters anymore. Like Ice said, when they talk about dogfights they're really more high energy engagements rather than turning and burning. German planes weren't really up for dogfighting anymore anyway. The early 109s were obviously good tight in turners but the better pilots had already switched to energy fighting during the BOB and by mid to late war German fighters were really high energy aircraft as they gained horsepower and speed but suffered in manueverability do to weight creep. There are plenty of stories about low altitude dog fight like engagements but a lot of the ones I've read about start with a poorly executed bounce and the P-51s usually so outnumbered the Germans anyway that at the worst the combat would be a draw.

Buzzsaw-
04-12-2005, 08:13 PM
Salute Red Nickerson

Faustnik and the other guys in JG77 are some of the best 190 drivers I have met in this Sim, especially when flying as a team, which of course, is the strong point of the aircraft.

If you were fortunate enough to be allowed to join the Squad, (and I'm not even sure they're recruiting now) you would soon learn how to kick butt in this aircraft...

Unless you were flying against me in a P-47, in which case you'd get spanked... http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

Simmer2005
04-12-2005, 09:11 PM
Thanks to all for the replies.

I have been around for awhile now. Just never posted before. I remember before the last patch I could take my 51 and turn fight with any of the planes. Now turning does not seem to be a option. Guess I need to teach myself how to do it differently.

BuzzU
04-12-2005, 10:55 PM
The P-51 is a good plane, and I love it to death. However! Killing someone with the Jug is way more fun. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

VW-IceFire
04-12-2005, 10:58 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by lrrp22:
Hey Ice,

ETO/MTO Mustang pilots did in fact dogfight quite readily. Those in the Pacific did not. While not a dogfighter compared to the Japanese planes or the Spitfire, the Mustang did, as you said, match up well with the later German types. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Its a matter of how the "dogfight" is carried out. ETO Mustang pilots were confronted with the Bf-109 (usually G-6 and later) and the FW190A's and D's. None of those were supreme turners like the Japanese planes were. They were all meant to be faster than they were manuverable. So thats what I'm on about.

geetarman
04-13-2005, 08:13 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Simmer2005:
Thanks to all for the replies.

I have been around for awhile now. Just never posted before. I remember before the last patch I could take my 51 and turn fight with any of the planes. Now turning does not seem to be a option. Guess I need to teach myself how to do it differently. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

And you are absolutely right - they did turn better a few patches ago. You could turn fight the 109's (except G-2's)without too much concern. Hell, I remember the P-38 could do it too!

That's all changed now, and a debate still occurs over whether that is correct or not. Fact is, currently the 51 is not a good low to medium speed turner. Because of this you have to adjust tactics to be successful.

VW-IceFire
04-13-2005, 08:16 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by geetarman:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Simmer2005:
Thanks to all for the replies.

I have been around for awhile now. Just never posted before. I remember before the last patch I could take my 51 and turn fight with any of the planes. Now turning does not seem to be a option. Guess I need to teach myself how to do it differently. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

And you are absolutely right - they did turn better a few patches ago. You could turn fight the 109's (except G-2's)without too much concern. Hell, I remember the P-38 could do it too!

That's all changed now, and a debate still occurs over whether that is correct or not. Fact is, currently the 51 is not a good low to medium speed turner. Because of this you have to adjust tactics to be successful. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Nothings changed on the Mustangs...they still turn pretty much the same as before. Whats different is the 109s seem to have benefitted frm the stall modeling system currently in place (probably meant to help the carrier aircraft). Thats why 109s, Spitfires, and Yaks can stand on their tails all day long. In a proper fight, the Mustang can get inside a 109 at higher speeds, long enough to spray their engine full of .50cal http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

lrrp22
04-13-2005, 08:38 AM
I figured that was what you were saying. I agree completely.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by VW-IceFire:

Its a matter of how the "dogfight" is carried out. ETO Mustang pilots were confronted with the Bf-109 (usually G-6 and later) and the FW190A's and D's. None of those were supreme turners like the Japanese planes were. They were all meant to be faster than they were manuverable. So thats what I'm on about. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

geetarman
04-13-2005, 08:49 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by VW-IceFire:

Nothings changed on the Mustangs...they still turn pretty much the same as before. Whats different is the 109s seem to have benefitted frm the stall modeling system currently in place (probably meant to help the carrier aircraft). Thats why 109s, Spitfires, and Yaks can stand on their tails all day long. In a proper fight, the Mustang can get inside a 109 at higher speeds, long enough to spray their engine full of .50cal http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Rgr Icefire - I don't know if it was a change in the Mustang or other planes. I should have been clearer. That notwithstanding, the experience is now different. Cheers!

quiet_man
04-13-2005, 09:49 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Simmer2005:
Try diving and using speed and the wings snap off or go into a instant black out at 10 degree pitch. ...
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

if you have issue controling this, take a look at the stick settings

and remember that current input modell is strength! if you position your stick somewhere, the virtual pilot will move his stick so far he can get with the strength you give him

so even if you move your stick only "slight", if the pilot needs few strength to move his stick -> high input -> wings of or blackout

it is the same with the 190, it just loses speed very fast, giving you the impression you can pull more

quiet_man

WOLFMondo
04-13-2005, 09:59 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Simmer2005:
Try diving and using speed and the wings snap off or go into a instant black out at 10 degree pitch. Plus the spitfire can out run a F4U nd P51. So can the BF109. seen it to many times.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Now that simply isn't true. The Spitfire IX is actually pretty slow compared to its late war adversaries at all heights, only very high is it in a world of its one as far as turning is concerned and its ceiling limits. The P51 is exceptionally fast at all heights and its wings do rip of but only when mishandled, it can be easily avoided with controlled speed and angle.

US planes (some will disagree) offer allot of variety and do require skills to fly, some more than others. The Jug and P38 take as much if not more skill to master than most other planes in this sim but US planes are allot about team work and little about lone wolfing or taking chances.

BTW, install FB and then take the Jug for a spin, then apply the patches and tell me its not got betterhttp://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

VW-IceFire
04-13-2005, 10:32 AM
Aye...the Spitfire IX is quite slow in comparison to the Mustang, Thunderbolt, FW190D-9, and Bf.109K-4. The trouble is that lots of guys try those close in fights and then try to instantly disengage while the Spitfire still has more energy than they do...what ends up happening is it looks like the Spitfire ran them down when infact it was never equal energy in the first place.

I agree with Wolf all the way. American aircraft of virtually all types require some thinking and good piloting skills. They are excellent team machines and not nearly as good in the lone wolf mode.

If you stop to consider that groups like the 56th FG would fly all of their squadrons in a stacked swath across the sky...your talking 30-40 Thunderbolts all in a given area looking for trouble. They never went after a gaggle of 109s one by one...it was always by the numbers.

Aaron_GT
04-13-2005, 04:16 PM
You can fly them lone wolf if you restrict yourself to BnZ from a big energy advantage. The .50s are hard to use BnZ unless you set short convergence and judge it well. If you are at medium-low altitude at high cruise speed with a plane on your 6 and you are alone it is tough in any plane as hard maneouvering means losing energy, but US planes tend to lack acceleration and there is only so far you can dive. The F4U is probably the most survivable. If you are up high, though, you can keep the P51 at a really good high cruise speed and still have bags of reserve power in the engine.

p1ngu666
04-13-2005, 10:19 PM
well, the american planes are normaly fairly heavy, dont climb perticulary well, there more bnz and team planes, u can drag well with american planes

u can out manover other planes in a usa plane, but advantage is probably with the other aircraft in terms of turn, climb etc

WOLFMondo
04-14-2005, 10:28 AM
That is one trait some have in common however the P38, P40, P47, P51, F4F, F4U, F6F are all vastly different planes.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Aaron_GT:
You can fly them lone wolf if you restrict yourself to BnZ from a big energy advantage.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Lone wolfing is possible but not in the same league as say the D9.

Aaron_GT
04-14-2005, 12:16 PM
Yes, they all have their different traits, but BnZ seems to work well for most of the US planes (B239 and possibly F4F excepted). The P38 works quite well as the cannon and concentrated nose armament is very effective. I find if bounced in the P38 I find it's a death trap.

What about the P39 and P63? They both have fairly good turn performance it seems, so maybe they are the exceptions to the more general rule.

The 190D9 is a nice plane. I've flown it a few times to even up numbers. Subjectively it seems a 'smoother' ride than the P51, but doesn't seem to have as an effective high altitude high cruise. In all those low level furball DF servers high altitude cruise isn't much of an advantage. Armament wise the 190D9 has the same sort of punch as the P38.

Hristos
04-14-2005, 01:28 PM
Mustang is a superb plane, but not a stallfighter. Dogfight is such a broad term and used too often. It can mean anything from slow speed near stall turning to high speed maneuvering on the verge of blackout.

Mustang likes it faster. Get low and slow in it and you are asking for it http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

If you want a late war dogfighter, I suggest you wait for Spit XIV. It will have acceleration and climb of 109K-4, 2 Hispanos and above average turning ability among late war planes.

Buzzsaw-
04-14-2005, 01:58 PM
Salute

As everyone says, SPEED, SPEED, SPEED is the Mustang way.

Load 50% fuel, or 25% if you are really a noob, and climb for alt to start.

Whenever possible, you want to be operating at 4000 meters or higher, try not to go under 2000.

Keep your speed up in the Mustang, and you are safe from everything but the Fockewulf 190D9. Against one of those, the Mustange will quite happily turnfight. (but if you do, make sure there are no 109's around which can latch on you while you're low and slow http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif )

Whenever possible, you want to be operating at 4000 meters or higher, try not to go under 2000.

Make your attacking pass, if you have a decent angle, don't pull too hard a turn, keep it gentle, drop combat flaps, and follow through perhaps 90 degrees of a turn, no more, then up flaps again, and zoom for altitude.

Repeat as nessesary.

Flying with a buddy is always preferable, learn how to 'walk the dog', 'drag and bag', etc.

If you get a 109 on you, build speed in a dive, up to 600 kph, drop combat flaps, then try a series of quick scissors to reverse the positions. Don't hang around if things get too slow, get out of Dodge, and regain alt before re-engaging.

If you are flying a historical setup, in the early '44 era, the P-51B or C is the fastest aircraft bar none at all altitudes but 2000 and under. You can play with 109G6's and 190A8's. Only limitation are the four .50 cals, not much firepower, best to drop convergence to 150-200 meters, get up close and make the shots count.

Aim for the cockpit and engine, all of the '51's don't usually have enough firepower to blow off wings. You have lots of ammo, don't be shy to take risky shots.

All of the above applies to flying the P-47, except that you don't go under 3000, and preferably fly at 5000 or above. At 6000-7500, the early P-47's rule the G6's and and earlier 190's. If there are 190D's about, and you are in a P-47, you need to be very careful. Ditto the 109K4.

The one advantage the P-47 has over the '51's is that you can blow wings off in a single burst fairly easily. But I still aim for the cockpit and engine. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif And the '47 has even more ammo than the '51. (always take 'Extra Ammo' unless you are carrying other ordanance)

Load 50% fuel for the P-47. That is usually plenty. Alternatively you could load 25% and take a drop tank. But then you don't get the extra ammo.

If you are low and slow, and in trouble on the deck with the P-47, go WEP, close the Rad, and drop all the flaps right down to landing. If you are low fuel, it is surprising how well the big ugly SOB will maneuver. I have surprised a few D9's that way. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif But use scissors rather than trying to outturn the opponent. And when you get the engine overheat message, don't sweat it... http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif This ain't no pansy DB605 or Merlin. Oleg has modelled quite correctly the fact that the big Pratt and Whitney R2800 is a he-man engine which will run a LONG time on overheat without much damage. (Factory engineers ran one unmodified engine at 72 inches boost for 300 hours straight before it finally blew up)

Even more than the P-51 though, think SPEED when driving the Jug. It really isn't a good thing to get slow.

I am no expert on the P-38, I'll let someone else supply the suggestions there. The P-38J is a tough plane to be successful in, unless you are in a historical server and the opponents are '43 and '44 Japanese. (no Ki-84's) The P-38L is a little easier, but still a bit of a difficult plane.

The other U.S. Army Fighters are turnfighters, although the P-39 is somewhat of a hybrid, ie. you need to keep the speed at 300-350 kph.

faustnik
04-14-2005, 02:19 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Buzzsaw-:
Oleg has modelled quite correctly the fact that the big Pratt and Whitney R2800 is a he-man engine which will run a LONG time on overheat without much damage. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Except it will sieze after hit by one Mg17 round. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-mad.gif

(Ooops sorry for the whine, couldn't help it)


Great info by Buzzsaw there. One thing to remember is to stay on top of the Doras. Going into a fight with a Dora that has an altitude advantage is risky.

BSS_Vidar
04-14-2005, 03:18 PM
50% fuel, 25% if you're a noob? Interesting comment considering I can get 45 min flying time out of a quarter fill gas tank. There's no need for any more gas than that, unless you're planning on flying escort missions from England to Berlin. If I do need more gas, I fly with drops and 25% internal. I use external gas to get me there on the bigger maps. As far as I know, no one has come up with a massive long-range escort mission yet. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

The American planes are OK, but I don't think the strengths and weaknesses in German/Russian flight models compared to planes like the P-51, and ammo strength i.e. .50 cals are hisotricaly compadible. Watching Chuck Yeagers gun footage the other night on a 190 convinced me of that. A short burst of .50 cal from over 150m away absolutly shredded that 190, and hastily removed it's left wing by the root in a fireball. I had almost exact same senerio with great hits on a 190 and he just flew away. But I did eventually get him with another pass which knock out the engine. Granted, .50 cals aren't as big as 20mm rounds, but so many rounds quickly went down range, that German pilots were known to say that "The 51, and 47's hit like Buzzsaws." Again, not in this game unless to pop a Zeke.

My observations of roll rate on 109/190's in this game have made me come to the conclusion that they are a bit excessive; however, I think V4.0 will fix that. Torque and P-Factor should hamper roll rate to the left like it should. German fighters had short wings folk; therefore, not much mechanicle advantage going against the torque of there powerful engines. So.. we should see no more snappy flip-flopping manuevers in the game that would knock a real pilot out of his sences.

Bud Andersons accounts of a 109 diving down (with energy) on him as tail-end charlie on a bomber escort mission. He testifies he out maneuvers the 109 by pulling him into the virticle and making the 109 stall first simply isn't reflected in this game. Again, V4.0 should remedy this due to the high prase of actual pilots giving input to Olegs efforts.

Ever see what German ammo does when it hits the ground after missing you? It explodes to the extreme that you can see a sonic shockwave. A bit too strong IMHO. Yes, the German ammo was superior, but come on now. They didn't hit like a high powered morter shell. Just review 109 gun cam footage on B-17's will testify to that.

108 pods should completely deminish a 109's ability to dogfight. They were never used in dogfights in real life folks. They were used stricktly to take out bombers. Their performace was so hindered, that they needed 109's/190's without pods to fly cover for them as they engaged allied bomber formations. Not reflected in this game. With 108 pods on, and 109 couldn't fight its way out of a paper bag with another fighter.

109K's had such terrible parasite drag, that simply flying around the landing pattern was almost at full throttle. These planes in-game hold their energy states a bit too well based on this alone. That reflects back to Bud Andersons 1944 engagement when a 109 diving down on him, then lost energy following him into the virticle, and stalling out just before he did. You won't see that from a 109 in this game either.

This is by far THE BEST WWII flight sim ever made. Speaking as a retired Navy flyer, LOMAC with Flamin Cliffs is number one. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/10.gif

Gen. Gunther Rall: "The P-51 gave us a real beating, they taught us a thing or two".

Gen. Chuck Yeager: "P-51 did in 8 hours what the Spit could only do for 45 min".


... and I'm a Corsair fan! http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_cool.gif

Buzzsaw-
04-14-2005, 03:43 PM
Salute Vidar

Sarcasm aside, none of the weapons in this game hit the way they did in real life. Perhaps this is a function of packet loss due to lag, perhaps a game design decision to allow more survivability.

But unless you are at point blank range with a Mk 108, you don't get the results the historical pilots saw. Unless you are shooting at a Zero... http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

And as far as 25% vs 50%... If I'm lucky to get results, sometimes I'll fly for an hour and a half on one sortie... just my style, I like to take my time and to survive when possible. Sometimes I'll be a little less patient, so in that case I'd be better off taking 25%.

But I like to fly at least a little historically, and the fact is, no WWII pilot took off with 25% fuel.

Stanger_361st
04-14-2005, 03:57 PM
BSS_Vidar. Great post I agree with ya 200%.
http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/351.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif

Simmer2005
04-14-2005, 06:34 PM
Mr. Oleg and all.
My deepist apologies.
I remember before the last patch I thought that the flight yoke input was a little crazy and adjusted it to some extremes. Well, thinking of that, I reset the inputs back to the default, and wow what a difference. Sorry to you and your team sir and next time I will look at things closer.

Badsight.
04-14-2005, 11:16 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by WOLFMondo:
Now that simply isn't true. The Spitfire IX is actually pretty slow compared to its late war adversaries at all heights <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>no that isnt true , the mk9 only lacks the last few tens of kilometers in speed over the P-51 , its speed & speed retention make it just as fast , if not faster than the Mustang untill the Mustang reaches the last 10% of its total speed range

Aaron_GT
04-15-2005, 05:26 AM
Vidar,

With regard to the footage you saw, perhaps that was an occasion in which Yeagar dispatched a 190 quickly. It can happen in the game two - I've sawn wings off with 50s but it doesn't happen all the time, and it might not have done in real life either, but just sometimes. You'd need a statistical analysis for that.

Also something lacking in the IL2 series are the puffs of smoke, panels, etc., falling off planes. We get some debris modelled, but not the quantity so real life footage may look more dramatic due to the debris. I suspect the relative lack of debris in the game is a frame rate consideration.

carguy_
04-15-2005, 06:13 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by BSS_Vidar:
Bud Andersons accounts of a 109 diving down (with energy) on him as tail-end charlie on a bomber escort mission. He testifies he out maneuvers the 109 by pulling him into the virticle and making the 109 stall first simply isn't reflected in this game. Again, V4.0 should remedy this due to the high prase of actual pilots giving input to Olegs efforts. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Don`t hold your breat.All planes hold on props like helicopters,not only Bf109.Ever tried flying a Yak?

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Ever see what German ammo does when it hits the ground after missing you? It explodes to the extreme that you can see a sonic shockwave. A bit too strong IMHO. Yes, the German ammo was superior, but come on now. They didn't hit like a high powered morter shell. Just review 109 gun cam footage on B-17's will testify to that. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

You give pilot accounts.There was a big discussion about pilot accounts and the main conclusion was that all of those should be traken with a grain of salt.Aircraft data tell more because physics are always the same.
Hey,according to German pilots a B17 took an average of 5 MK108 shells and it was going down.Only when hit in the wingtip in the game,normally 7-15 shells needed.Wait,uuuuh did you read LW pilot account that a it was needed a maximum of 2 MK108 shells to down a fighter?Again,too many exceptions of this 'rule'.You want to give pilot account,I can give you a pilot account that states the opposite.
The "high powered mortar shell" effect is just a graphic effect.You see it in all high caliber weapons when hitting ground.It still doesn`t resemble the real thing,that`s for sure.
One more:a half second shot at 70degrees at the Spit canopy from a 4xMG151/20 @40m range leaves some shreds on the plane skin but it does continue fighting.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>108 pods should completely deminish a 109's ability to dogfight. They were never used in dogfights in real life folks. They were used stricktly to take out bombers. Their performace was so hindered, that they needed 109's/190's without pods to fly cover for them as they engaged allied bomber formations. Not reflected in this game. With 108 pods on, and 109 couldn't fight its way out of a paper bag with another fighter. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Owned by a MK108 pods lately?I never use them mainly because there were rarely or no whatsoever MK108 pods used in WWII dude!Only the MG151/20 pods!It is quite possible that a penalty on Bf109 FM is a bit hampered because Oleg had trouble resembling it?
Right now a MK108 pod or a MG151/20 pod loadout makes a FW190F8 out of a Gustav.It takes much much longer to return to bomber formation after you make a pass.You know what?LW pilots atacked bomber formations on headon attacks.It takes up to 10mins to return to a headon position after a pass in the game.One exception here:the G2 can attack fighters with this loadout but Gustavs are as heavy as the FW190F8.I`d say on the G series the effect is quite accurate.



<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>109K's had such terrible parasite drag, that simply flying around the landing pattern was almost at full throttle. These planes in-game hold their energy states a bit too well based on this alone. That reflects back to Bud Andersons 1944 engagement when a 109 diving down on him, then lost energy following him into the virticle, and stalling out just before he did. You won't see that from a 109 in this game either. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

As you might know the K4 was the most advanced aerodynamically Me109 ever built.Such a terrible drag could not be beaten even by the powerful engine the K4 had.But the K4 was lightyears ahead of the G6.


BTW depends what you mean by "buzzing" at the Me109.If you ask me it is made nicely in the game.Of all the P51 missions I`ve made,every .50cal burst shot at reasonable range (120-50m) renders Me109 engine smoking or big holes in wings which means disabled for fighting.You possibly can`t demand an effect the MG151/20 had!Yes,there are 6x.50cal but those are still machineguns!Moreover German shells had much more HE that their allied counterparts.


I don`t fly FW190 so I can`t say.

robban75
04-15-2005, 06:33 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by BSS_Vidar:
My observations of roll rate on 109/190's in this game have made me come to the conclusion that they are a bit excessive; <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Ever tried rolling in other planes? Most planes in the game roll too fast.

WOLFMondo
04-15-2005, 09:01 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Badsight.:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by WOLFMondo:
Now that simply isn't true. The Spitfire IX is actually pretty slow compared to its late war adversaries at all heights <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>no that isnt true , the mk9 only lacks the last few tens of kilometers in speed over the P-51 , its speed & speed retention make it just as fast , if not faster than the Mustang untill the Mustang reaches the last 10% of its total speed range <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

You don't fly them or against them much do you? :P

That last 10% is 45mph which is a hell of allot. Thats almost the difference between a 1944 Spit IX and the Spitfire Prototype.

Spitfires, unless right up your backside can be run away from easily, there **** acceleration is there down fall along with poor high speed roll rate. Just take a FW190A4 vs VB or A6 vs IX or VIII and you can always get away, in a A9 or D9 its laughable how slow Spitfires are. The only thing that will get away from a Mustang is a D9 in a dead run at lower altitude, at higher altitude theres nothing that can escape the Mustang because it can use a shallow dive to build up speed and keep it.

p1ngu666
04-15-2005, 09:03 AM
whats on k4 that makes it better than f series and g2? (areodynamicly i mean)

faustnik
04-15-2005, 10:05 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by WOLFMondo: in a A9 or D9 its laughable how slow Spitfires are. The only thing that will get away from a Mustang is a D9 in a dead run at lower altitude, at higher altitude theres nothing that can escape the Mustang because it can use a shallow dive to build up speed and keep it. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I agree with you 100% WOLFMondo. For a Fw190 a Mustang is the greatest threat. A9s and D9s are just too fast for the MkIXs. All the Fw190 has to do is maintain speeds over 450kph and it holds every advantage over the Spit, acceleration, speed, climb, even turn. Against the Mustang the opposite is true, the faster you go, the better the P-51 gets.

Atomic_Marten
04-15-2005, 11:57 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Badsight.:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by WOLFMondo:
Now that simply isn't true. The Spitfire IX is actually pretty slow compared to its late war adversaries at all heights <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>no that isnt true , the mk9 only lacks the last few tens of kilometers in speed over the P-51 , its speed & speed retention make it just as fast , if not faster than the Mustang untill the Mustang reaches the last 10% of its total speed range <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

In low alt turnfight, I have several occasions where I have outrun Spit Mk.IX (I believe that were C models) in Bf109G6Late (I realized that I'm gonna lose in sustained turnfight, so I decided to run).

Treetop level, so we can't dive to get speed, and obviously I have 'edge' in acceleration.

About what you guys are saying, Mustang vs. FW190, on realistic scenarios, that is the closest dogfight (some of you guys may disagree with me, but I find Mustang to be one with 'edge'). There is no way to escape from P51 in FW190 (with conventional manoeuvres -- without total blackout).

Generally speaking, on ETO western theatre particularly, P51 must rock big time.(versus FW190s and Bf109s).

geetarman
04-15-2005, 12:18 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by WOLFMondo:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Badsight.:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by WOLFMondo:
Now that simply isn't true. The Spitfire IX is actually pretty slow compared to its late war adversaries at all heights <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>no that isnt true , the mk9 only lacks the last few tens of kilometers in speed over the P-51 , its speed & speed retention make it just as fast , if not faster than the Mustang untill the Mustang reaches the last 10% of its total speed range <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

You don't fly them or against them much do you? :P

That last 10% is 45mph which is a hell of allot. Thats almost the difference between a 1944 Spit IX and the Spitfire Prototype.

Spitfires, unless right up your backside can be run away from easily, there **** acceleration is there down fall along with poor high speed roll rate. Just take a FW190A4 vs VB or A6 vs IX or VIII and you can always get away, in a A9 or D9 its laughable how slow Spitfires are. The only thing that will get away from a Mustang is a D9 in a dead run at lower altitude, at higher altitude theres nothing that can escape the Mustang because it can use a shallow dive to build up speed and keep it. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Without resorting to charts and tests, my on-line experience tells me that this post is very accurate.

Aaron_GT
04-15-2005, 12:20 PM
One of the problems is that the P51B to D loses its historical strengths in typical DF servers. It should excel as a long range high altitude escort fighter, as part of a squadron, and with armament that only needs to cripple a plane to put it out of the fight rather than blowing it up. But in DF servers there is no need for range, often things are at low level, not enough squadron support, and enemy planes keep coming even if they are on fire!

lrrp22
04-15-2005, 12:22 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by p1ngu666:
whats on k4 that makes it better than f series and g2? (areodynamicly i mean) <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Exactly. I've asked the same question.

The only advantage a K-4 has over an F/G-2 aerodynamically is the fully retractable tail wheel and outer wheel well covers. Disadvantages include a much larger asymmetrically bulged cowl, four new cowl intake scoops, a much deeper oil cooler bath under the nose, two large 'chin' bulges under the nose, a much larger supercharger intake, and large upper wing fairings vs. no wing bumps on the F and G-2/early G-4. Also, the K-4's tail wheel was usually locked-down in operational service and the well covers frequently removed.

The K-4 was an aerodynamic improvement over the G-6/14, but seemingly not the Frederich or early G's.

geetarman
04-15-2005, 12:24 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Aaron_GT:
One of the problems is that the P51B to D loses its historical strengths in typical DF servers. It should excel as a long range high altitude escort fighter, as part of a squadron, and with armament that only needs to cripple a plane to put it out of the fight rather than blowing it up. But in DF servers there is no need for range, often things are at low level, not enough squadron support, and enemy planes keep coming even if they are on fire! <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Correct - however, many of the low alt df servers are full of guys burning around at 1,000' and not really watching their HIGH six.
A 51 pilot can score on those servers and run by using speed and alt. Historical? Probably not, but it works!

BSS_Vidar
04-15-2005, 02:14 PM
I'm a bit stunded that a few people on these forums come to the defence of their ideas with what is, in no doubt, the most ignorant statement I've ever seen repeated over and over again in these threads.

"Pilot accounts are considered bias, and disregarded", or "Pilots don't know enough to give accurate accounts of aircraft performance".

That tells me that you know NOTHING about what it takes to be a combat pilot. Only an ignorant Monitor Jockey would use that as a defence to his/her beliefs. A pilot has to know his aircraft inside and out, and know how far to take it to the edge... And he also has to know every aspect of the aircraft he may be encountering in combat, so he can use it's strengths and weaknesses against it.

To disregard accounts from someone like Chuck Yeager is rediculous, considering the man is an aeronauticle engineer as well.

Come up with something else, because not listening to the people who flew this machines in combat is just stupid. Why do you think Oleg is using real pilots to test this new flight model comming out? Because they don't know what they're talking about? PLEASE. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif

Aaron_GT
04-15-2005, 03:37 PM
"To disregard accounts from someone like Chuck Yeager is rediculous"

Noone has done that. All I did was say that you have to be careful about your personal interpretations about footage and how it compares to the game if you are seeing a sample of one piece of footage from the camera of an ace pilot for whom, presumably, air combat is easier than for the average. It's an issue of selection, not dismissing a great pilot.

An analogy would be, I suppose, watching Tiger Woods get a hole in one and assuming that this says something about the golf balls rather than the quality of the player.

WB_Outlaw
04-17-2005, 02:29 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by BSS_Vidar:
To disregard accounts from someone like Chuck Yeager is rediculous, considering the man is an aeronauticle engineer as well.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

In a combat situation where there is no opportunity to debrief the enemy pilot, I can easily discount almost everything a pilot says about the enemy except what he observed. Just because a pilot is turning, doesn't mean he was turning to get away from the attacker. He could be turning to get away from the attacker's wingman (he never saw the actual attacker), which is in a totally different position than the attacker. He may be turning to attack another aircraft. He may be turning to confirm a kill, or his wingman's kill. He may be turning because he's low on fuel and needs to land. He may be turning to find his best friend who just called for help. He may be turning because his a$$ itches and a tight right hand turn scratches it just right.

A combat report may tell you that pilot X out-turned pilot Y but that has absolutely no bearing on whether pilot X's aircraft is capable of out-turning pilot Y's aircraft in a dynamic near max performance situation. To believe such is ridiculous. Put a Cessna pilot in a Spit Mk 14 and I guarantee you a Thunderbolt ace will out-turn him without even thinking about it.

A controlled comparison with well trained pilots completely familiar with both aircraft taking turns in the aircraft being compared has merit but, even then it's only those specific aircraft (and I'm not talking types, I mean individual aircraft). If one is at the high end of the production quality and the other is at the low end, there may be some significant differences.

-Outlaw.

p1ngu666
04-17-2005, 03:26 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by WB_Outlaw:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by BSS_Vidar:
To disregard accounts from someone like Chuck Yeager is rediculous, considering the man is an aeronauticle engineer as well.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

In a combat situation where there is no opportunity to debrief the enemy pilot, I can easily discount almost everything a pilot says about the enemy except what he observed. Just because a pilot is turning, doesn't mean he was turning to get away from the attacker. He could be turning to get away from the attacker's wingman (he never saw the actual attacker), which is in a totally different position than the attacker. He may be turning to attack another aircraft. He may be turning to confirm a kill, or his wingman's kill. He may be turning because he's low on fuel and needs to land. He may be turning to find his best friend who just called for help. He may be turning because his a$$ itches and a tight right hand turn scratches it just right.

A combat report may tell you that pilot X out-turned pilot Y but that has absolutely no bearing on whether pilot X's aircraft is capable of out-turning pilot Y's aircraft in a dynamic near max performance situation. To believe such is ridiculous. Put a Cessna pilot in a Spit Mk 14 and I guarantee you a Thunderbolt ace will out-turn him without even thinking about it.

A controlled comparison with well trained pilots completely familiar with both aircraft taking turns in the aircraft being compared has merit but, even then it's only those specific aircraft (and I'm not talking types, I mean individual aircraft). If one is at the high end of the production quality and the other is at the low end, there may be some significant differences.

-Outlaw. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

cessna pilot would be the more http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gifhttp://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gifhttp://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gifhttp://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gifhttp://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gifhttp://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gifhttp://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gifhttp://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif one tho http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

NorrisMcWhirter
04-17-2005, 05:07 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by WB_Outlaw:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by BSS_Vidar:
To disregard accounts from someone like Chuck Yeager is rediculous, considering the man is an aeronauticle engineer as well.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

In a combat situation where there is no opportunity to debrief the enemy pilot, I can easily discount almost everything a pilot says about the enemy except what he observed. Just because a pilot is turning, doesn't mean he was turning to get away from the attacker. He could be turning to get away from the attacker's wingman (he never saw the actual attacker), which is in a totally different position than the attacker. He may be turning to attack another aircraft. He may be turning to confirm a kill, or his wingman's kill. He may be turning because he's low on fuel and needs to land. He may be turning to find his best friend who just called for help. He may be turning because his a$$ itches and a tight right hand turn scratches it just right.

A combat report may tell you that pilot X out-turned pilot Y but that has absolutely no bearing on whether pilot X's aircraft is capable of out-turning pilot Y's aircraft in a dynamic near max performance situation. To believe such is ridiculous. Put a Cessna pilot in a Spit Mk 14 and I guarantee you a Thunderbolt ace will out-turn him without even thinking about it.

A controlled comparison with well trained pilots completely familiar with both aircraft taking turns in the aircraft being compared has merit but, even then it's only those specific aircraft (and I'm not talking types, I mean individual aircraft). If one is at the high end of the production quality and the other is at the low end, there may be some significant differences.

-Outlaw. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>


I agree entirely. Besides, a lot of wartime pilot accounts are anecdotal and should be taken with a pinch of salt; they serve some useful purpose but most are entirely unscientific.

What is more scientific is that recent video of that test pilot who said that the 109 could out-turn pretty much anything. Ah..yes, the one that was disputed in here because the planes wouldn't have been representative of those in the war because of guns radios etc. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Some people want their cake AND to eat it.


Cheers,
Norris

F16_Sulan
04-17-2005, 09:29 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by p1ngu666:

cessna pilot would be the more http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gifhttp://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gifhttp://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gifhttp://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gifhttp://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gifhttp://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gifhttp://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gifhttp://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif one tho http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/88.gif

Interesting discussion!

WOLFMondo
04-18-2005, 03:07 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Atomic_Marten:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Badsight.:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by WOLFMondo:
Now that simply isn't true. The Spitfire IX is actually pretty slow compared to its late war adversaries at all heights <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>no that isnt true , the mk9 only lacks the last few tens of kilometers in speed over the P-51 , its speed & speed retention make it just as fast , if not faster than the Mustang untill the Mustang reaches the last 10% of its total speed range <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

In low alt turnfight, I have several occasions where I have outrun Spit Mk.IX (I believe that were C models) in Bf109G6Late (I realized that I'm gonna lose in sustained turnfight, so I decided to run).

Treetop level, so we can't dive to get speed, and obviously I have 'edge' in acceleration.

About what you guys are saying, Mustang vs. FW190, on realistic scenarios, that is the closest dogfight (some of you guys may disagree with me, but I find Mustang to be one with 'edge'). There is no way to escape from P51 in FW190 (with conventional manoeuvres -- without total blackout).

Generally speaking, on ETO western theatre particularly, P51 must rock big time.(versus FW190s and Bf109s). <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I find the FW190's roll to be the winner here, its very close but you can use the roll to get out the way but its a very close run thing.

IF we get a Spitfire IX with 25lbs boost things will change marginally down low. If we get a Spitfire XIV then up high it will r0x0r! Against everything.

IF we get a Tempest V then the FW190D9's will have to use manouvering to get out the way, right now the D9 can outrun P51's, this will not be the case with Tempest V's.

Bearcat99
04-18-2005, 05:47 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by BSS_Vidar:
50% fuel, 25% if you're a noob? Interesting comment considering I can get 45 min flying time out of a quarter fill gas tank. There's no need for any more gas than that, unless you're planning on flying escort missions from England to Berlin. If I do need more gas, I fly with drops and 25% internal. I use external gas to get me there on the bigger maps. As far as I know, no one has come up with a massive long-range escort mission yet. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

The American planes are OK, but I don't think the strengths and weaknesses in German/Russian flight models compared to planes like the P-51, and ammo strength i.e. .50 cals are hisotricaly compadible. Watching Chuck Yeagers gun footage the other night on a 190 convinced me of that. A short burst of .50 cal from over 150m away absolutly shredded that 190, and hastily removed it's left wing by the root in a fireball. I had almost exact same senerio with great hits on a 190 and he just flew away. But I did eventually get him with another pass which knock out the engine. Granted, .50 cals aren't as big as 20mm rounds, but so many rounds quickly went down range, that German pilots were known to say that "The 51, and 47's hit like Buzzsaws." Again, not in this game unless to pop a Zeke.

Ever see what German ammo does when it hits the ground after missing you? It explodes to the extreme that you can see a sonic shockwave. A bit too strong IMHO. Yes, the German ammo was superior, but come on now. They didn't hit like a high powered morter shell. Just review 109 gun cam footage on B-17's will testify to that.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I do the same thing as far as fuel goes.... I get a kick out of watching my tanks fall off on the flyby.... http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif I disagree with you about the ammo though. I think the 50s are modelled pretty well in this sim. Was the experience you mentioned above offline or online? If online then you probably had some kind of packet loss... I hope the patch puts the final polish on the netcode. I regularly pop off 109s and even 190s if I hit them right with a 1-2 second burst offline. If I am in a Jug fuggheddabouditt... Catch those 109s in front of the pilot at convergence and it will light right up. If you both are at a highrate of speed very oftewn it will just explode.

Slickun
04-18-2005, 08:24 PM
Disregard the pilot and rely instead on ....what?

Stats and such? There are folks on here that debunk things like that as much as folks refuse to believe a pilots account that goes against their favorite plane.

For example, why couldn't the Russians make the German planes go as fast as the Germans claimed? We all know the answer to that one.

Disregard the oral history and historical results when two types went at it if you want to. To me, that is where the rubber hits the road. What actually happened is much MUCH more important than theoretical analysis. Why? The theories were tested, hmmm?

We're playing in a sim. Our planes should reflect the way the average plane was at the time we are pretending to fly them. No 150 gas available? Tough ****e, my friend. That's the way it really was, and if your Russian P-40 is handicapped by bad fuel, you are STILL in the cockpit of that bird, and theory be durned.

You going to tell these pilots that what they experienced was bunk, that it couldn't have happened that way because of some PAPERWORK? They flew it, they lived it, but they can't be right because you read a REPORT?

Please. They were there. What happened happened. German pilots say the P-51 was faster, they are lying?

Russian pilots say they loved the P-39, they are mistaken?

Anderson outzoomed a 109, this didn't happen?

Sorry for the rant.

Aaron_GT
04-19-2005, 06:52 AM
"Disregard the oral history and historical results when two types went at it if you want to."

Slickun, noone is saying to disregard the reports, but to read them in context. If you look at the work historians do they assmeble all sorts of information and consider it together.

Eyewitness accounts can contain valuable information, but they can also be fallible as various psychologists have shown, so you have to use eyewitness accounts as part of the evidence, not the only evidence.

Aaron_GT
04-19-2005, 06:54 AM
"Anderson outzoomed a 109, this didn't happen?"

Perhaps he did. Perhaps the 109 pilot was a total newbie. Perhaps the 109 was having engine trouble that day? Perhaps the energy states in the stress of combat weren't those that Anderson thought were the case. Perhaps the 109 pilot was injured, or having a bad hair day. There are so many other factors to take into account that it not generally reasonable to extrapolate from a single eye witness account. If there are a preponderance of accounts that match a hypothesis, then you are onto something.

Slickun
04-19-2005, 11:13 AM
He says he outzoomed a 109. He gives a riveting account, wanted to kill the pilot because he feared him. He also says that the this was the only time the P-51 itself saved him, rather than his flying.

We know the p-51 had a good zoom climb. What about this account would you doubt? Rather than take Anderson at his word, we begin questioning the account? Why? What is dubious about it?

Please tell me it isn't a case of love for the 109 blinding one to the possibility a P-51 could actually zoom well.


Someone says, "I regularly outturned Zero's at low speeds with my P-51" then we question.

anarchy52
04-19-2005, 03:19 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Slickun:
Please tell me it isn't a case of love for the 109 blinding one to the possibility a P-51 could actually zoom well.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Are You saying that P51 does not zoom well in game?
WTF?!?

VW-IceFire
04-19-2005, 03:29 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Slickun:
Disregard the pilot and rely instead on ....what?

Stats and such? There are folks on here that debunk things like that as much as folks refuse to believe a pilots account that goes against their favorite plane.

For example, why couldn't the Russians make the German planes go as fast as the Germans claimed? We all know the answer to that one.

Disregard the oral history and historical results when two types went at it if you want to. To me, that is where the rubber hits the road. What actually happened is much MUCH more important than theoretical analysis. Why? The theories were tested, hmmm?

We're playing in a sim. Our planes should reflect the way the average plane was at the time we are pretending to fly them. No 150 gas available? Tough ****e, my friend. That's the way it really was, and if your Russian P-40 is handicapped by bad fuel, you are STILL in the cockpit of that bird, and theory be durned.

You going to tell these pilots that what they experienced was bunk, that it couldn't have happened that way because of some PAPERWORK? They flew it, they lived it, but they can't be right because you read a REPORT?

Please. They were there. What happened happened. German pilots say the P-51 was faster, they are lying?

Russian pilots say they loved the P-39, they are mistaken?

Anderson outzoomed a 109, this didn't happen?

Sorry for the rant. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
You're after the reason why pilot anecdotes aren't used as performance indicators or what?

The fact is that the sim doesn't rely on anecdotes it runs on numbers and mathematical equations so the best possible data is based on numbers. So when they say the Mustang was "fast" what does that mean? http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

The trouble with pilot anecdotes is that they are just that...memories. Mine, yours, the pilots in WWII, whatever...its not perfect for most of us (unless your some sort of robot) so its not perfect. Oleg does use pilot anecdotes to help build FM's (a certain qualitative level is apparently requested for flight models) but it relies heavily on numbers so when we have a problem with a plane, its based on numbers and documents...not if so and so said something about it somewhere.

But I agree...if your P-40 has **** fuel in it...thats the way it was. Should be done to the actual wartime standards and not the best possible...but we have problems with that and interpretation of best possible. In some cases, USAAF planes operated above specifications (authorized and unauthorized field mods) while in some cases Russian aircraft were of poor quality and did not fly to spec (just as examples, not representative).

Wolf-Strike
04-19-2005, 03:45 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by VW-IceFire:
The Mustang historically was very dangerous with a full fuel load as the rear tank shifted the COG too far back. In game its not so pronounced...but the weight of all that fuel is a killer.

http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

S~~ Icefire

I had asked on this board if BOB will bring about changes in COG due to fuel loads changing awhile back.Oleg replied that this would have to wait till BOB where this feature will be implemented.

VW-IceFire
04-19-2005, 04:31 PM
For sure...stuff like that we may see a little more of in 4.0 but more likely in BoB.

That said, the game still takes into account the overall weight of a given aircraft. Thats why when I fly a P-47, P-38, P-51 in a dogfight server I take only 25% fuel as all three can fly for much longer than I'll ever fly in a dogfight server and you get a massive performance boost by removing all that weight.

Its a little known trick that has lead to alot of people saying any one of those three is horribly undermodeled. Few realize that a Mustang with 25% fuel is likely to have better endurance than a La-7 at 100% fuel http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

WOLFMondo
04-19-2005, 05:03 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Slickun:
He says he outzoomed a 109. He gives a riveting account, wanted to kill the pilot because he feared him. He also says that the this was the only time the P-51 itself saved him, rather than his flying.

We know the p-51 had a good zoom climb. What about this account would you doubt? Rather than take Anderson at his word, we begin questioning the account? Why? What is dubious about it?

Please tell me it isn't a case of love for the 109 blinding one to the possibility a P-51 could actually zoom well.


Someone says, "I regularly outturned Zero's at low speeds with my P-51" then we question. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Its not that no one belives him, its simply about 1 pilot telling a story and only knowing half the facts, he knew nothing about that 109, its version or its pilot. As pointed out that 109 could have been piloted by a rookie, the engine could have been overheating and the pilot was letting it cool at the wrong time, he could have run out of MW50, or broken the engine by to much use. Only the German pilot knows his side of the story and the performance of his plane at that precise point in time. yes the P51 has excellent zoom climb but we do not know and no one knows apart from that German pilot the exact state of his plane at that point in time, therefore pilot statements can't be taken as gospel.

No one is disregarding history at all, what there saying is precise statistical data cannot beobtained by pilot accounts, only a rough idea.

Slickun
04-19-2005, 05:08 PM
I'm after the idea of why pilot anecdotes are often discarded. Out of hand.

Because they don't fit with some paperwork.

There is a thread somewhere on these here boards that discusses the top speeds of the A6M Zero vs the F4-F. What we found is that the data often quoted, in fact found in just about every pub, was faulty, and that pilots anecdotes about the Zero's top speed were dead on. That it was a very close match for the P-39 at most altitudes, and easily outran the Wildcat.

Pilot after pilot comes back and says "this". But that can't be true because I read "that" in a book.

More often than not, I'm going to go with the guy that was doing the flying, killing, dying and surviving. Not for exact things, but their oral history as to the drift, the general performance, what their plane could do better than the other guys, before I'm going with some theoretical paper.

LeadSpitter_
04-19-2005, 05:35 PM
I definatly agree with you, after posting so much data thats done wrong in game thread gets locked becuase the lufties come in and flame all allied threads, with 100 fuel fully loaded ammo and drop tank data performances dont even match 25% fuel in game performance,

browning m2 do not have the correct order of firing, inner two fire, then middle, the outer two fire which really only had the recoil and dispurstion of two brownings firing, the more guns the higher rof and hitting power but recoil of 2 m2s firing which was why they were so accurare in reality over cannon,

They all fire at one time which is clearly wrong and they reason why we have the dispursion of 4 6 8 guns all firing at the same time, this is why there is no difference in .50 cal strenght from 2 4 6 or 8 guns or higher rof.

The p47 still has the wrong payload positions the center rack could never carry 1000lbs but 500lb the wing racks were able to hold 250 500 and 1000lb along with the bazooka tube, the p51s also carried the bazooka tubes especially the b c and a couple hundred D models did.

The p38s elevator, altitudes under 27000 feet and damage model, the thing is most russian german have the latest varients that were used so rarely, but we have no high boost late spits mustangs or p47s, no p38j 5 lo or p38l 5 lo.


We also dont get any p51a with 4 hispano or the a36, i really have no faith in how 1c models allied ac not even close to the charts.

Dont get me wrong theres things that are over modeled like the p47s low speed turn rate compaired to the 190a, the p40s and wildcats roll rate and some other things.

The major thing with this game is being able to get a kill in one pass, which .50 can rarely do even with 100-200 convergence which is just wrong.

shvak and 108 cannon are top dogfighting weapons becuase of this and the most accurate in game.

shvak one burst exploding ability on any fighter as far as 1.0 range much to accurate

108 cannon exploding ability at .50 range on all fighters in one burst much to accurate

Hispanos .40 with one burst exploding ability

the 50cal .20 range

the mg151 .30 range

the funny thing is all the talk about the overmodeled spitfires always, the 109s do almost everything the same in turning but the 109s out roll it high speed, have slightly better elevator highspeed with trim and combat flaps, equal to them with no trim or flaps

the only thing the spit does better is with almost no E it can climb .50m higher then a 109 with no E., it also breaks up much sooner then a 109 in a high speed dive.

Copperhead310th
04-19-2005, 07:38 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by faustnik:
I hear those Jg77 guys are the Bad News Bears of the IL-2 world. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.giflol geee i thought that tittle was reserved stricly for the 310th. lol

RedNeckerson
04-19-2005, 08:50 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Buzzsaw-:
Salute Red Nickerson

Faustnik and the other guys in JG77 are some of the best 190 drivers I have met in this Sim, especially when flying as a team, <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>


Thanks for the kind words http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

ljazz
04-20-2005, 04:55 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by BSS_Vidar:
To disregard accounts from someone like Chuck Yeager is rediculous, considering the man is an aeronauticle engineer as well.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I don't believe that is true..... Perhaps I'm wrong, but if I recall correctly, Yeager only had a high school education. I'm not discrediting the fact that he may have the knowledge of an engineer (heck, I was an engineer prior to my degree). But in the strictest sense, I don't believe he was/is a degreed engineer. (could be wrong however)

~S~
ljazz

WOLFMondo
04-20-2005, 05:41 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Slickun:

More often than not, I'm going to go with the guy that was doing the flying, killing, dying and surviving. Not for exact things, but their oral history as to the drift, the general performance, what their plane could do better than the other guys, before I'm going with some theoretical paper. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

No ones saying there opinion isn't worth anything however the victorious pilots story is the only side of the story.

As mentioned before, pilots accounts in combat with another plane tell you a little about the plane but allot about the pilots individual skill.

One thing Pierre Closterman says in the big show about late war 109 and 190 pilots is the majority, 80%+, could not get the best out of there machines because they lacked the training and experiance of the experten who were long gone or to dispersed to pass on there experiance effectivly.

Again with Closterman, he was chased by 5 Dora's in his Tempest as he was chasing another Dora (he doesnt specify which version) which he tells us they had white hot exhausts. He engages his overboost, hits 4000 revs and 3000HP and catches the fleeing Dora and shoots him down while leaving the others behind. What does that tell us? Nothing apart from when overboosted the Tempest already in a straight and level run is incredibly fast but tells us nothing of the Doras performance because the pilots never told there side of the story and no one apart from those pilot can tell us anything about those planes at that time on that day. For all Closterman knows they might have been at full power and then cut back and were waiting behind him to make a turn back to Holland where they could cut him off.

P51 Ace 'A' shot down a 109. He describes how he did it and says his planes performance was the key. What that tells you his he was a great pilot in a good plane. What it doesn't say is what state the German pilot was in (was he suffering from fatigue? A cold? was he actually any good or a rookie like most where late on and only flew gliders and had less than 10 hours in his fighter?) and it doesn't tell us what state those planes was in (were they faulty or in disrepair, fuel load, ammo load, ballast, battle damage etc) and rarely does a pilot tell us the exact model, or can be 100% precise of what it was, was it a 109G, if so which version, they all look quite similar apart from the hood but then it could be a K version to the untrained eye.

Theres so many variable in there, the greatest being the skill of each pilot which is a huge variable.

Aaron_GT
04-20-2005, 06:11 AM
Slickun wrote:
"I'm after the idea of why pilot anecdotes are often discarded. Out of hand.

Because they don't fit with some paperwork."

Noone is saying this, Slickun. We are saying that pilot accounts need to be read in context with known figures and other pilot accounts.

Even in the sim we have people saying "Plane X outzoomed me yesterday, that's wrong" but if you do the objective tests then you find that normally plane X cannot outzoom plane Y and the pilot in plane Y misjudged the situation. Accounts of dogfights from two people on a DF server vary.

So basically you have to take the preponderance of evidence from all sources into account. This is how history is done, and this is a simulation of a historical period.

Aaron_GT
04-20-2005, 06:13 AM
"We also dont get any p51a with 4 hispano or the a36, i really have no faith in how 1c models allied ac not even close to the charts.
"

There are a whole lot of planes missing, Leadspitter. The Mustang IA and A36, in terms of total numbers, saw less service than others we also don't have. The plane selection is pretty random due to it being based on 3rd party modellers including planes (e.g. P80A) that saw basically no service at all (certainly less than the A36). The old argument has been "If it isn't there, model it yourself". I can't model anything more complex than an anti-aircraft blimp though!

Aaron_GT
04-20-2005, 06:16 AM
" but tells us nothing of the Doras performance because the pilots never told there side of the story and no one apart from those pilot can tell us anything about those planes at that time on that day."

Indeed - they might have just thought it wasn't worth chasing a single Tempest as their orders might have required them to go elsewhere. In that case the lack of pursuit from that point might not have been due to performance. Or it might have been entirely due to performance. From Closterman's report itself we can't tell. Performance figures give us information which allows us to make some guesses about what might have been the case for the LW pilots.

Diablo310th
04-20-2005, 08:33 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by BuzzU:
The P-51 is a good plane, and I love it to death. However! Killing someone with the Jug is way more fun. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/351.gif I couldn't agree more, but then I'm a Jug lover.

NorrisMcWhirter
04-20-2005, 09:53 AM
Hi,

Although Aaron has already answered this for the most part, I'll chip in my response anyhow...

slickun:

I'm not saying that you can disregard pilot accounts but that they are unscientific and should not be used as an absolute guide to what planes should and should not be able to do in this game..or real life, for that matter.

I would argue that a pilot sitting in an enclosed space, with restricted visibility and with lots of combat going on around coupled with the fear of dying only has a limited *perception* of what is actually happening. We know this is true because 80% of pilots were supposedly shot down by someone unseen; this suggests that even alert people couldn't possibly know what was going on all the time.

Also, the outcome of a pilot's particular scenario may not be repeatable...hence it is unscientific.

As you know from chemistry/physics etc at school, a test that has no known start condition, known variables and that is unrepeatable may well be interesting but is of little scientific interest because it very often means that it proved little or nothing at all.

Example: an experiment to find out the thermal effects on water of adding impurity.

Someone writing up the experiment may put down: "I added some undefined amount of salt to the water and heated it up for a bit and then took some temperature measurements now and again as I didn't have a timer. I would have drawn a graph but I had no idea what temperature it was at a given time. In the end, though, I took the temperature of the water when it started boiling and it was different from if it had been if the water had been pure. Oh, I don't know what the ambient pressure was at the time, either, but that might have had some impact, I suppose"

Apologies if that sounds condescending but I hope it highlights why the accounts mean not a lot.

I would more be prone to accepting a pilot account where he said that he'd recorded the time taken to get to 20,000ft with a decent chronometer, noting engine/aircraft settings, loadout, fuel and weather conditions for the duration of the climb. Better still would be if he had documented the test a number of times and averaged the climb times for similar conditions.
This kind of attention to detail is not likely in the heat of air-to-air combat.


I've used the guncam footage argument in the past before as an aside to this.
People see guncam footage and assume that every single attack would have a similar outcome to what they saw...i.e. that it was representative of all attacks. I would say that guncam footage be used for training purposes or for simple propaganda for the public...and that means a high probability of that footage being specifically chosen to show pilots how to do things right...or, for propanganda, that our 'boys' were being very successful.

What you don't see very often, of course, is guncam footage spread about on the net of pilots completely missing their targets, just clipping them or, worse still, where a plane was hit in almost exactly the same way as a plane that was
destroyed but which, instead, survived.

The same can be said of pilot accounts of combat. Yes, we hear about pilots who have outclimbed/outzoomed plane xyz and some people assume that this was entirely representative. What we don't see, of course, are those pilot accounts where they didn't outzoom or outclimb their opponent because they were unsuccessful....and most likely died. It's the same as pilot accounts where they said they made it home with x amount of damage to their aircraft.

How many pilots also with x amount of damage didn't make it home to praise their ride? No one can say.

Conclusion? There is an inherent bias in pilot accounts for no other reason than they survived a scenario. Just as there inherent bias in guncam footage because it would make sense for only the sequences with the desired outcome to be shown.

Couple this with unrepeatable tests and you have a recipe for errors in perception; that's why I don't trust pilot accounts. They're interesting but I wouldn't bet money on what a pilot said 50 years ago as being entirely representative of a particular scenario.

Ta,
Norris

faustnik
04-20-2005, 09:54 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by LeadSpitter_:
theres things that are over modeled like the p47s low speed turn rate compaired to the 190a, <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

What's wrong with the P-47/Fw190 turn matchup? What models are you talking about? The P-47 has slightly favorable wing loading at some fuel loads.

Slickun
04-20-2005, 10:25 AM
Fellas, many many posts, all well thought out, and I appreciate the time spent to kindly answer me and my opinions. And, that's all they are http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

One thing strikes me. Virtually all of you say that no one dismisses the pilots accounts out of hand. Let me respectfully disagree. Without going back through the posts and threads, may I assure everyone that the reason I made the initial post was to answer exactly that statement. A poster on these here boards had made that exact point, to wit, pilot accounts are so unreliable as to be discounted, especially if there are reports, tests, paperwork, or a manufacturer somewhere that says otherwise.

Many of you say, no, don't discount the pilots account necessarily, then go into a long set of reasons to do exactly that. Don't trust that pilot, trust the paperwork. There are so many variables.

May I respectfully present that the paperwork has even more variables? Read ANY of the technical type threads on here, and guys go at it in how to interpret the data, if the data is relevant, sound etc. A favorite is to discount any sort of comparitive testing done because the testing country didn't do it right, or had an inferior airplane. I am a frequent arguer in those, and quickly get in over my head.

It all comes down to : what actually happened? How do we find out? Stats and pilot accounts.

And may I also add that combat is the ultimate argue finisher. The loser has no say because he was killed. That has a LOT more juice with me than saying, well, Anderson was such a good pilot we must discount any of his aircraft observations, especially those of the many guys he killed.

Ironic. A guy that is as skilled in the application of his weapon as just about anybody is discounted for that exact reason? What sense does that make?

Hartmann says the P-51's were newer, better and faster than his G-10's. We aren't to believe that? He's wrong because some book says otherwise?

For an interesting read on the Zero, and how pilots' reminisces trumped paperwork go to

www.j-aircraft.com/research/rdunn/zeroperformance/zero_performance.htm (http://www.j-aircraft.com/research/rdunn/zeroperformance/zero_performance.htm)

Aaron_GT
04-20-2005, 12:11 PM
Slickun,

Performance tests done by manufacturers or airforces tend to have much more controlled conditions and documentation on those conditions, in other words they are more scientific. Scientific data has to be read in context too, but tends to be more controlled than combat. Combat reports are important too, but you seem to be counting them as more important than controlled experiments.

It is instructive to note that airforces, even with the wealth of combat reports that they had, felt the need to conduct performance tests, mock dogfights in controlled conditions by test pilots and so on.

Aaron_GT
04-20-2005, 12:11 PM
"Ironic. A guy that is as skilled in the application of his weapon as just about anybody is discounted for that exact reason?"

Take the chip off your shoulder, we're not saying that.

Aaron_GT
04-20-2005, 12:19 PM
Norris wrote:
"Couple this with unrepeatable tests and you have a recipe for errors in perception; that's why I don't trust pilot accounts. They're interesting but I wouldn't bet money on what a pilot said 50 years ago as being entirely representative of a particular scenario."

Pilot accounts are useful historical record. That can't be taken away from them. And pilot accounts, taken in toto, can fill in gaps where other tests cannot comment. But as you rightly pointed out, you have to read the breadth of accounts. This is why historians often spend a lot of time working with very dull primary source material to get the breadth of accounts and compare them against as many different types of records from as many different sources with as many different biases and agendas as possible and try to surmise the true state of affairs. I knew a few medieval history PhD students. The leg work is far from exciting.

Lav69
04-20-2005, 12:50 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by The_EDF_Legacy:
Speed is your best friend as they said. However, throttle back when diving because otherwise you'll shed your wings. I can dive at around 800KPH and not shed while flying straight, though anything about 700KPH WILL shed if you try to pull up quite hard. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

the P51 isn't any faster than any of the other planes (except zero) so wheres the advantage.

Slickun
04-20-2005, 01:06 PM
Yes, Aaron, several folks have said that. Some in those words, some in so many words. In fact, if you read the posts above my last one, there are is enough written to cast doubt on his (Anderson's account) to make its own thread.

Feel free to discount pilots' accounts as you see fit. Nothing personal, no chips on the shoulder. I think they are as reliable as to what went on up there as the theoretical paperwork is.

I tend to believe the guys doing the actual flying.

Again, my posts are in response to a post in this thread. Discount pilot accounts at your peril. Did you READ the link about the A6M's top speed?

Now, can we lay this to rest? What we have here is a disagreement on how much to listen to first hand accounts. Nothing more. You seem to think data trumps anecdotes most of the time, I don't.

LilHorse
04-20-2005, 02:43 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by LeadSpitter_:
the funny thing is all the talk about the overmodeled spitfires always, the 109s do almost everything the same in turning but the 109s out roll it high speed, have slightly better elevator highspeed with trim and combat flaps, equal to them with no trim or flaps

the only thing the spit does better is with almost no E it can climb .50m higher then a 109 with no E., it also breaks up much sooner then a 109 in a high speed dive. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I'm sorry but this is bunk. I don't know what 109 you're flying (my guess is you probably don't fly any of them much at all) but it sure ain't the ones I fly.

Take something like a G6 into a turnfight with a Spit, any Spit (which would be foolish), with equal energy for both planes and that Spit is gonna turn inside after a few go-rounds, get in behind you and let you have it. The G6 just doesn't hang with a Spit in that kind of fight.

It's not cause the Spit is "overmodelled" it's cause that's how the two planes stacked up against each other. Turn with the Spit and you're in trouble. Have the alt in a 109, dive, shoot, run away, cause it can do that against a Spit.

Aaron_GT
04-20-2005, 03:19 PM
"there are is enough written to cast doubt on his (Anderson's account) to make its own thread.
"

Noone is doubting Anderson's account!

All we are saying is that Anderson's account, due to all the other variables in play, is not sufficient to say anything definitive about the relative merits of the 109 and the P51. More evidence is required (e.g. tests in a scientific format or a plethora of pilot accounts).

Aaron_GT
04-20-2005, 03:26 PM
"I think they are as reliable as to what went on up there as the theoretical paperwork is.
"

Ok, here I will take issue with you. Eyewitness accounts can be unreliable (it does not mean that Anderson's account is unreliable, just that it is hard to put any a priori figure on the reliability: i.e. it is unproven, so we can't doubt it). Many studies have been done to see how unreliable eye witness accounts are, by, for example, staging incidents in public and then interviewing witnesses to the events. Even though the incident is known by the investigators accounts can differ widely both from each other and what actually occured. This is why in criminal cases proof is required beyond reasonable doubt, rather than just (as in civil cases) by the preponderance of evidence - it is partly in recognition that eyewitness evidence can be fallible.

The case with pilot accounts is somewhat complicated by the fact that the events occur in three dimensions and the human mind is best suited to what is termed '2.5' dimensions - that is 2 dimensions with some movement in the third dimension. One of the things that marks out ace pilots is often the ability to think fully in three dimensions. As to whether this is an innate ability or one that can be learned, I am not sure.

So basically we are left with the account Anderson gave and little that we can judge it by. Given the fact that we have nothing else to judge it by we can assume that Anderson's account of his perceptions is essentially accurate and that it corresponds to the movements of the planes that he observed. At this level there is no reason to doubt Anderson. What we don't know are what part factors that Anderson was not able to perceive may have played in the events. If you have numerous pilot accounts and can piece together a pattern then this tends to factor out any of these other unknowable factors, but a single account does not.

VW-IceFire
04-20-2005, 03:30 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by LilHorse:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by LeadSpitter_:
the funny thing is all the talk about the overmodeled spitfires always, the 109s do almost everything the same in turning but the 109s out roll it high speed, have slightly better elevator highspeed with trim and combat flaps, equal to them with no trim or flaps

the only thing the spit does better is with almost no E it can climb .50m higher then a 109 with no E., it also breaks up much sooner then a 109 in a high speed dive. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I'm sorry but this is bunk. I don't know what 109 you're flying (my guess is you probably don't fly any of them much at all) but it sure ain't the ones I fly.

Take something like a G6 into a turnfight with a Spit, any Spit (which would be foolish), with equal energy for both planes and that Spit is gonna turn inside after a few go-rounds, get in behind you and let you have it. The G6 just doesn't hang with a Spit in that kind of fight.

It's not cause the Spit is "overmodelled" it's cause that's how the two planes stacked up against each other. Turn with the Spit and you're in trouble. Have the alt in a 109, dive, shoot, run away, cause it can do that against a Spit. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Actually, this is one of those rare times that Leadspitter is correct. The 109 displays just as much UFO behavior as the Spitfires do. But there's a prevaling impression that the German aircraft are always undermodeled and the Allied aircraft are always overmodeled...although this is not universally held as most American aircraft are assumed to be undermodeled as well. While I agree with none of these prevaling attitudes they exist and they drive popular discourse on the subject.

Nobody will hear me out (except maybe Leadspitter now http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif) on how the Spitfires behavior is essentially identical (the parts that people complain about like excessive prop hanging and energy retention) to many 109 models and Yak models. Flown the G-2 recently...its probably worse than the Spitfire for doing odd energy moves. Correct or not, it does it. Yak-3 oh yes! Yak-9 models...yeah for the most part (except the Yak-9B with bombs which can't hold energy in any manuver much less spin out http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif). But the Spitfire gets ratted on the whole bloody time...its popular pre-conception.

But you are right...the Spitfire is superior in a turn (IX vs G-6) to a 109 but just barely and the 109 loops and does vertical a bit better. Its got just as much so called "UFO ability" as the Spitfire. But nobody complains about that http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

p1ngu666
04-20-2005, 03:41 PM
indeed, there isnt much between 109 g2 and g6 and spit. awhile ago did back to back tests with biggs22 (we flew both aircraft to check)

just no one flew g6 for aloooongtime, so they forgot its a decent plane

WOLFMondo
04-20-2005, 04:02 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Slickun:


And may I also add that combat is the ultimate argue finisher. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

But that tells you nothing about the plane, just the pilots abilities.

faustnik
04-20-2005, 04:21 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by VW-IceFire:
The 109 displays just as much UFO behavior as the Spitfires do.

Nobody will hear me out (except maybe Leadspitter now http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif) on how the Spitfires behavior is essentially identical (the parts that people complain about like excessive prop hanging and energy retention) to many 109 models and Yak models. Flown the G-2 recently...its probably worse than the Spitfire for doing odd energy moves. Correct or not, it does it. Yak-3 oh yes! Yak-9 models...yeah for the most part (except the Yak-9B with bombs which can't hold energy in any manuver much less spin out http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif). But the Spitfire gets ratted on the whole bloody time...its popular pre-conception.

But you are right...the Spitfire is superior in a turn (IX vs G-6) to a 109 but just barely and the 109 loops and does vertical a bit better. Its got just as much so called "UFO ability" as the Spitfire. But nobody complains about that http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I agree that the G2 can do all the wierd stuff that Spitfires do. The Spitfire's lack of overheat below 6K meters adds another factor though. It's frustrating sometimes when flying USAAF to see the 109s do infinate verticle moves.

I would recommend that those people tired of so-called "Spit UFO moves" learn to fly an Fw190. You won't worry about that silly stuff anymore. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Slickun
04-20-2005, 04:49 PM
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Aaron_GT:
"there are is enough written to cast doubt on his (Anderson's account) to make its own thread.
"

Noone is doubting Anderson's account!

YES WE ARE! You may not be. Others are. Read a few after this last post of your's I'm quoting above.

Just cruise through this thread. I just didn't bring this up for the fun of it. My posts are a direct response to an earlier post, about Anderson, on these pages. The fellow that posted hasn't been back AFAIK. Being a polite kind of guy, I'm not going to toss names around.

Can we at least use Anderson's post as a general guide? That in at least one case in the history of WW2 it was possible for a P-51 to outzoom a 109? That once power and gravity and physics have ahold of those two guys fighting for their lives, pilot skill was minimal?

Is that not at least as useful as a theoretical calculation, using best possible conditions as a base, that does not begin to take into account the conditions at the front, pilot fatigue, differences in manufacture, fuel grade, war weariness, ease of pushing a plane to or near its theoretical limits?

Notice nowhere have I said disregard paperwork. I'm advocating the value of the personal account of the guy that was there, that LIVED all the above variables.

Everyone arguing this point on the other side has advocated, to a lesser or greater degree, paperwork uber alles.

Slickun
04-20-2005, 04:52 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by WOLFMondo:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Slickun:


And may I also add that combat is the ultimate argue finisher. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

But that tells you nothing about the plane, just the pilots abilities. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

The plane is a factor just as the pilot is. Good pilots are shot down all the time by poorer pilots in a plane good enough to equal them out.

If nothing else, two equal pilots, the one flying the plane with the most useful qualities will win.

RedNeckerson
04-20-2005, 08:37 PM
I had the opportunity to speak at length with Mustang pilot Shorty Powell about a year ago. There is a painting of him strafing a German airfield. His mustang had a blue tail with a large letter "P" on it.

He said the 109s he encountered were as maneuverable and "about as fast" as his Mustang. He seemed to have a favorable opinion of the 109.

He spoke with frustration you could still see in his eyes and hear in his voice about a mission where he was trying to run down four 109s. He was on the edge of a stall at 39,000ft. and he estimated the 109s were at 41,000ft. He said he couldn't catch them or get up as high as they were.

Anyway, he said he had about 600hrs flight time before he even went into combat in Europe http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-surprised.gif

He was a cool guy, sharp mind, and would talk to you all day about planes it seemed.

I got some pictures with him and some with Paul Tibbets.

Sad, but these guys are getting old.

horseback
04-20-2005, 09:13 PM
Tell me if any of these statements are untrue:

1. The vast majority of fighter vs fighter victories were achieved without the victim knowing he was in trouble before he was hit by his opponent's first bursts. By definition, aces/experten are much more aware of their surroundings and potential threats than their less gifted colleagues, and therefore far less susceptible to ambush.

2. Aces/experten rarely engaged each other, partly because they usually comprised less than 5% of the potential opponents available at any given time, and partly because of statement #1.

3. Pilots engaging enemy fighters obviously already aware of them did so either because they had no choice (means of escape, and this includes the duty to defend the bombers), or because they were confident that they held a decisive advantage (this doesn't mean that they were right, it just means that they were confident).

4. Therefore, the overwhelming majority of true dogfights, i.e., extended maneuvering combats between two opponents most often meant that neither pilot was very experienced. In the cases where one was much more experienced than the other, an extended combat meant that the experienced guy had blundered, or that the less experienced pilot was either very gifted or was flying the superior aircraft for those conditions.

5. I can think of no circumstance where an American flying an escort mission from England or Italy would not have already spent double or triple the time his potential Jagdewaffe opponent had spent aloft without a rest that day. The stress of climbing in close formation through the almost inevitable heavy cloud cover over his home base to altitude, transiting across enemy held territory to his rendezvous with the bombers, expecting/fearing an enemy attack at any point, all take a toll on a man, and wear him down long before his confrontation with the enemy. Flying at high altitudes in an unpressurized cockpit and breathing oxygen was another debilitating factor, and generally underappreciated on these boards. If anyone was already tired and emotionally drained when the fight started, it should have been the Yank.

6. Pilots' memoirs should be taken with a grain of salt, but there seems to be a common thread amongst the very best of them; most of them have a very clear memory of what happened when and to whom, a natural side effect of superior situational awareness. The demands of the squadron intelligence officer for clear detail had to add to the tendency for disciplining oneself to remember what happened for the at most, fifteen minutes of actual combat out of a four + hour flight. When the enemy's losses and impressions of the overall combat agree with the pilot's account, I think that there's probably something there.

7. Factory numbers are not always clean-cut or clear. Every company has its own testing methods and standards, even today. This was even more true in 1943/44. A company woud design and build its aircraft to a general government requirement, and then the pilots' impressions were usually what made the sale. I somehow doubt that Focke Wulf and Messerschmitt used similar testing standards to each other, and I'm positive that they didn't use a lot of the same standards or test instruments that Supermarine, Lockheed, Republic, or North American used.

My own experience in electronics makes me wary of being able to duplicate test results with different makers' test equipment, or even the same makers' different models of test equipment. I recommend the same grain of salt for factory specs or test of captured enemy aircraft as I do for pilots' accounts.

You have have to use all the information available to you to get anything like an accurate picture. Relying on factory specs (which can't tell you about everything that matters in combat) is just as fatuous as relying solely on the combat report of a terrified guy in his twenties hopped up on amphetamines.

cheers

horseback

Slickun
04-20-2005, 09:22 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by RedNeckerson:
I had the opportunity to speak at length with Mustang pilot Shorty Powell about a year ago. There is a painting of him strafing a German airfield. His mustang had a blue tail with a large letter "P" on it.

He said the 109s he encountered were as maneuverable and "about as fast" as his Mustang. He seemed to have a favorable opinion of the 109.

He spoke with frustration you could still see in his eyes and hear in his voice about a mission where he was trying to run down four 109s. He was on the edge of a stall at 39,000ft. and he estimated the 109s were at 41,000ft. He said he couldn't catch them or get up as high as they were.

Anyway, he said he had about 600hrs flight time before he even went into combat in Europe http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-surprised.gif

He was a cool guy, sharp mind, and would talk to you all day about planes it seemed.

I got some pictures with him and some with Paul Tibbets.

Sad, but these guys are getting old. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Sorry, fellas, but I'm going to believe this guy, even it it shows the P-51 in a less than uber light.

Great post, Horseback.

p1ngu666
04-20-2005, 09:39 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Slickun:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by RedNeckerson:
I had the opportunity to speak at length with Mustang pilot Shorty Powell about a year ago. There is a painting of him strafing a German airfield. His mustang had a blue tail with a large letter "P" on it.

He said the 109s he encountered were as maneuverable and "about as fast" as his Mustang. He seemed to have a favorable opinion of the 109.

He spoke with frustration you could still see in his eyes and hear in his voice about a mission where he was trying to run down four 109s. He was on the edge of a stall at 39,000ft. and he estimated the 109s were at 41,000ft. He said he couldn't catch them or get up as high as they were.

Anyway, he said he had about 600hrs flight time before he even went into combat in Europe http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-surprised.gif

He was a cool guy, sharp mind, and would talk to you all day about planes it seemed.

I got some pictures with him and some with Paul Tibbets.

Sad, but these guys are getting old. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Sorry, fellas, but I'm going to believe this guy, even it it shows the P-51 in a less than uber light.

Great post, Horseback. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

i can imagine some 109 pilots hoping they dont run out of GM1 http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

faustnik
04-20-2005, 11:02 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by horseback:

1. The vast majority of fighter vs fighter victories were achieved without the victim knowing he was in trouble before he was hit by his opponent's first bursts.

5. I can think of no circumstance where an American flying an escort mission from England or Italy would not have already spent double or triple the time his potential Jagdewaffe opponent had spent aloft without a rest that day. The stress of climbing in close formation through the almost inevitable heavy cloud cover over his home base to altitude, transiting across enemy held territory to his rendezvous with the bombers, expecting/fearing an enemy attack at any point, all take a toll on a man, and wear him down long before his confrontation with the enemy. Flying at high altitudes in an unpressurized cockpit and breathing oxygen was another debilitating factor, and generally underappreciated on these boards. If anyone was already tired and emotionally drained when the fight started, it should have been the Yank.


7. Every company has its own testing methods and standards, even today. This was even more true in 1943/44.

horseback <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Great post Horseback! I agree with every bit of it! I just quoted my favorites.

Many people refuse to believe that testing by different organizations at different facilities might yield results that are difficult to compare.

Aaron_GT
04-21-2005, 12:48 AM
Slickun wrote:
"That in at least one case in the history of WW2 it was possible for a P-51 to outzoom a 109?"

I believe that a P51 was, in general, able to outzoom a 109 (sustained climb is another matter). My narrow point is that Anderson's account, on its own, cannot be used to prove the matter either way.

Aaron_GT
04-21-2005, 12:51 AM
"Many people refuse to believe that testing by different organizations at different facilities might yield results that are difficult to compare. "

I touched on this. Whilst different organisations had different testing procedures there are often records of those procedures, and airforces tended to test too, which gives those multiple points of information, each in fairly controlled conditions. Systematic errors are possible, of course (such as the AFDU not pushing a 109 due to the slats opening) but here we have a statement on the slats opening and can read the reports given this context.

NorrisMcWhirter
04-21-2005, 01:05 AM
Slickun, etc:

I'm not sure if you seem to be suggesting that I'm in the camp that totally relies on factory test data otherwise I consider it as bunk. I don't.

I work in the area of electronics/software, also, and I know all about what datasheets SAY something does in comparison to what they actually do in real conditions/variance with batches etc.

You have to take a more holistic approach, coupling, like Aaron suggests, a large amount of pilot accounts WITH test data. Where they don't match obviously is where some extra attention is required in order to find out what is more likely to be correct.

I've never even mentioned Andersen but I just don't think it's as clear cut as something that a pilot saw on one day in a particular scenario of combat being the absolute truth of the matter.

Think back to when a newbie comes into a server and claims that people are cheating or say, 'how did you do that?' because they exploited some facet of their aircraft performance to the best effect. Then think about that in the context of pilot accounts. OK, so most pilots who survived the war were very experienced and not prone to saying 'cheat' etc but you have to factor things like this into the equation.

I'm certainly not saying that paperwork rules over real experience...rather that you cannot have it one way..or the other...you have to look at both. As I said, the holistic view.

Regards,
Norris

Slickun
04-21-2005, 08:21 AM
Norris, Aaron.

As I've said several times, what we seem to disagree on is how much credence to put on Pilots' accounts. I give a lot. In many cases, go with the guy that was there. I don't blindly accept a ridiculous claim anymore than you'd accept a study that showed the Wildcat reaching 440 mph in level flight.

Holistic approaches come in many types. You can have one that leans towards paperwork, and one that leans towards that human element.

geetarman
04-21-2005, 09:52 AM
Re: Anderson's account - Is it possible that since he was in a P-51 B/C (early 44 version), his opponent in his famous account might have been flying a standard 109G-6 and not one of the later-44 109's which were better hi-alt planes?

The fight apparently ended at very high alt. I think, in game, the Mustang at that alt should be able to zoom much better than a G6.

horseback
04-21-2005, 10:53 AM
Mustang, with both heavier and cleaner airframe, should outzoom the Messerschmitt at any alt with co- or greater E (note: if the dive starts at the same alt and close to same speed, the pony should have greater speed than 109 at dive terminus).

cheers

horseback

faustnik
04-21-2005, 11:01 AM
The problem with measuring zoom climb in the sim is guaging when zoom climb becomes sustained climb. We fly the Fw190s against Spitfires a lot in PF. The Fw190 definately out-zoom climbs the Spit, but, if you let your speed drop below 350kph, the Spit will gain ground.

RedNeckerson
04-21-2005, 03:00 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by horseback:

5. If anyone was already tired and emotionally drained when the fight started, it should have been the Yank.

cheers

horseback <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>


I agree with most of your post, but not this part.

I've spent a great deal of time researching missions on a day to day basis as well as individual battles from both sides.

Sorry, but to say that the "Yanks" went through more stress and were more "tired" on a typical mission in the ETO is really false.

Many German fighter pilots were flying multiple bomber intercept missions -

on the same day

every day

It is not at all uncommon to find German accounts where they were flying intercept missions 2 or more times in a single day, 4-5 hours or more in combat every day.

And of course, Luftwaffe pilots were greatly outnumbered.

American fighter pilots could(and did) arrive at speed and altitude - above the bad weather. And with advance knowledge of where and when the strike really was going to be.

There is a real tactical advantage to that, and it gets even stronger when German early warning radar is captured after June 1944.


Climbing to altitude through weather over England is not the same as climbing to altitude through weather over Germany, for a number of reasons. Poor early warning networks, diversionary raids, active combat zone, 80% of your flight consisting of German teenagers that have little or no instrument training. (That was the reality)

To say American fighter pilots had it tougher than their German counterparts is shown by reality to be false.

Sorry but that's the truth http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

RedNeckerson
04-21-2005, 03:05 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by horseback:

I can think of no circumstance where an American flying an escort mission from England or Italy would not have already spent double or triple the time his potential Jagdewaffe opponent had spent aloft without a rest that day. horseback <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>


I can.

Easy.

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

(See above http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif)

Slickun
04-21-2005, 04:57 PM
redneckerson wrote:
And of course, Luftwaffe pilots were greatly outnumbered.


A blanket statement. The truth is that at the point of attack, during the decisive Jan-May air battles of 1944, this was the case some of the time, often, maybe usually, not.

I have posted so often on this ...

A group of P-38's or P-51's would be the escort after the P-47's left. That's one squadron in front and one on each side. Against the LW interceptors.

The escorts did not all take off at once and go in a massive gaggle. They went in RELAYS. Else one feint would cause the pickle of every escort's tanks, and the bombers would be left defenseless at the target area.

Of course, you can count the B-17's. Those hundreds of Boeings make it look like the LW was REALLY outnumbered.

If you read Freeman's book you know this already.

Later, after the Invasion and the appearance of the D model, the LW WAS outnumbered. But they got that way after a bloody battle. Thousands of P-51's did not suddenly appear over Germany.

faustnik
04-21-2005, 05:10 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Slickun:


Of course, you can count the B-17's. Those hundreds of Boeings make it look like the LW was REALLY outnumbered.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Well, why wouldn't they count Slickun? They were the targets for the LW fighters. It's not the LW fighters went up there looking for a fight with the escorts.

horseback
04-21-2005, 07:17 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by RedNeckerson:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by horseback:

5. If anyone was already tired and emotionally drained when the fight started, it should have been the Yank.

cheers

horseback <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>


I agree with most of your post, but not this part.

I've spent a great deal of time researching missions on a day to day basis as well as individual battles from both sides.

Sorry, but to say that the "Yanks" went through _more_ stress and were more "tired" on a typical mission in the ETO is really false.

Many German fighter pilots were flying _multiple_ bomber intercept missions -

on the same day

every day

It is not at all uncommon to find German accounts where they were flying intercept missions 2 or more times in a single day, 4-5 hours or more in combat every day.

And of course, Luftwaffe pilots were greatly outnumbered.

American fighter pilots could(and did) arrive at speed and altitude - above the bad weather. And with advance knowledge of where and when the strike really was going to be.

There is a real tactical advantage to that, and it gets even stronger when German early warning radar is captured after June 1944.


Climbing to altitude through weather over England is not the same as climbing to altitude through weather over Germany, for a number of reasons. Poor early warning networks, diversionary raids, active combat zone, 80% of your flight consisting of German teenagers that have little or no instrument training. (That was the reality)

To say American fighter pilots had it tougher than their German counterparts is shown by reality to be false.

Sorry but that's the truth http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

May have been true by the late summer/early fall of 1944, but not before, particularly prior to the month or so so before D Day. The teenagers weren't getting into the fight much before D-Day, if at all; it was the slaughter of the veterans who had been holding the line until the advent of the first few Mustang squadrons that made the failure of the Luftwaffe training program evident, and brought in the undertrained kids in August and September '44. The slaughter of the veterans was accomplished by a relatively small group of American fighters out over central Germany, where the Spits and most of the P-47s not coverted to the wet wing pylons couldn't reach.

Even so, German pilots were sleeping in German beds amongst their countrymen, and flying to fight an invader trying to bomb their country. They enjoyed a certain amount of motivation that the Americans lacked; England is not like home for most Americans, and it was even more alien to them in the 1940s. Except for the language, most of us are more at home in Germany, where the beer is the right color.

I've spent a bit of time in both Great Britain and Germany, and I'll take Germany's winter skies over Britain's any day; remember that bombing raids were mounted on days when the air over the target would be clear, not when the air over Kent and East Anglia was. Thus, the German pilot usually had much better takeoff conditions than the raiding Americans.

Almost every escort mission started with a brief at O-dark thirty, and a takeoff through heavy cloud cover by hundreds of aircraft over a very concentrated area. Quite often the overcast lasted up to 20,000 ft, during whichyou had to stay in close visual contact with your wingman, who was staying in close visual contact with your leader who you couldn't see and who had to maintain a carefully plotted course, speed and climb angle to avoid other aircraft flying through the muck, all heavily laden with fuel and droptanks making your aircraft sluggish and unresponsive.

The lufties love to point out how treacherous the Mustang was with a full fuselage tank; throw in a couple of droptanks on the pylons and blind formation flying to to 6000m, and tell me again how unskilled and undisciplined American pilots were.

There was no effective air radar control for those conditions then-none. Even today, the numbers of aircraft in a bombing mission during the period from February 1944 onwards would make an external anticollision system largely ineffective. As it was, almost every day there were collisions over southern England and the Channel. Why do you think 8th AF operational losses of aircraft were so much greater than combat losses?

By contrast, a German pilot launches into the air with a much lighter aircraft knowing at least in general where his enemy is. Anyone who has ever been shot at will tell you what a huge psychological advantage that is, particularly when he's had a chance to take a piss a few minutes before engaging.

And that was my key point; at the time the German pilot takes off, with some idea of when and where he will shortly enter combat, the American has already spent at least an hour and a half of teeth grinding tension wondering when the Jerry will show up, his bladder pressure slowly building, his throat and sinuses dry from breathing canned air, his eyes straining at every dust speck and imperfection in his windshield and canopy, cursing the stupid bastage he was assigned to follow while he has to constantly work his throttle and drain away the precious fuel he needs to get back to base so that the guy he's formating on can get the kills, the news paper stories, the babes and the glory...

Obviously, the ineptitude of the Luftwaffe higher command had a serious impact on the Jagdewaffe's casualties in 1944, but the culture of the jagdewaffe made it possible for the Americans to continue to exist in 1943. Had the Germans made an all-out effort to hammer the escort groups every time they appeared, the Yanks would never have accumulated the experience, tactics and skill necessary to be successful in the first half of 1944,when the issue was decided.

The bombers would have continued to be easy meat for the Zerstorers and gunpod equipped Reich defense gruppen, and the strategic bombing campaign would have ground to a complete halt. Both sides would have reverted to a bloodier tactical air war over the battlefield, East Front style, with the same ultimate result.

cheers

horseback

Slickun
04-22-2005, 07:33 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by faustnik:
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Slickun:


Of course, you can count the B-17's. Those hundreds of Boeings make it look like the LW was REALLY outnumbered.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Hey, count them if you want.

However, LW advocates often use the Boeing numbers to make it look like the LW was outnumbered by AAF FIGHTERS.

On a 500 plane mission, if 80 LW fighters are vectored towards the stream, opposed by the 4th FG and its 45 or so P-51's, the LW is NOT outnumbered by escorts. Yet, "the LW was always outnumbered" is an excuse often given to drag down any discussion of the P-51's effectiveness.

Truth is, bomber gunners were kind of like flak. They got a few every mission.

However, anyone with any knowledge at all knows that a stream of B-17's, by late 1943, was not able to win a war of attrition with the LW.

Throw in the 500 heavies, and heck, the 109's are outnumbered 545 to 80. They had no chance, right?

Look up the term Jaegerschreck, coined by the LW high command in early 1944. You are correct that they weren't looking to tangle with the escorts. The beauty of the long ranged AAF types is that they made it increasingly hard to avoid them.

NorrisMcWhirter
04-22-2005, 08:49 AM
Not wishing to take pilot accounts as gospel http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif but Knocke often talked about having multiple bandits on his 6 after attacking bomber streams.

So, if I adopt your view and assume that pilot accounts should be considered as entirely representative, we can argue that LW pilots were outnumbered and that they were further disadvantaged by the fact that they were very often carrying heavy weaponry more suited to bomber interception than DF'ing. Something to back this up would, of course, be LW 109 pilots saying that their favourite type was the F before the 109 became 'too heavy.'


Cheers,
Norris

PS: "where the beer is the right color.." It's the wrong colour..see: http://www.wychwood.co.uk/new_images/art_lagerboy_whatsthematter_800x.jpg

carguy_
04-22-2005, 08:53 AM
Hmm the guy takes from pilot accounts what suits him.Pretty pathetic if you ask me.

NorrisMcWhirter
04-22-2005, 12:55 PM
? I'm pathetic? I'm just conjecturing to show that you can make any old point by being selective. The same selectiveness that, as I said, introduces misconceptions in the first place.

i.e. my post was, as usual, sarcastic.

Norris

Aaron_GT
04-22-2005, 12:57 PM
"Even so, German pilots were sleeping in German beds amongst their countrymen,"

Apart from the night bombing...

Aaron_GT
04-22-2005, 01:06 PM
"However, LW advocates often use the Boeing numbers to make it look like the LW was outnumbered by AAF FIGHTERS."

In terms of total number of planes deployed this was the case by 1945. Germany was being hit by 2000 bombers and 1000 fighters per day (and getting close to every day) in daylight, generally as one thrust from England, and another from Italy, plus fighter bomber interdiction, and then anything up to 1000 bombers (and rather less fighters) at night (or as 1945 progressed, less at night as Bomber Command swapped to daylight raids too). The Luftwaffe could put up around 300 fighters at any one time at most. Sorties flown were probably more equal on each side, but that represents LW planes flying more than one mission per day.

Locally the AAF could be outnumbered at times if a 100 LW planes turned up all in the same place, but typically not all the LW fighter sorties made contact with the bombers due to weather, not finding the bombers, or interdiction from fighter bombers.

Whilst flying 4 hours to target is tiring, the P51 at least had a relatively comfortable cockpit, whereas that of the 109 was very cramped. Also there is a psychological issue with regard to doing multiple sorties per day: you go up, engage the enemy (which is the intense part) see comrades shot down, return, the adrenalin drops, and then the adrenalin has to pick up for the next sortie. It's the sort of wringer that the B17 crews earlier in the war had to cope with when hit by multiple waves of LW aircraft and took a lot of men close to (and sometimes beyond) breaking point due to the on-off-on-off repetition.

Slickun
04-22-2005, 02:07 PM
Aaron GT.

As I've said many many times....the whole LW was outnumbered thing is true, as you state, after D Day, increasing as the war went on. I have NEVER disputed this.

Horseback hit this pretty well in his post, though, during the Jan-May 1944 air battles, when the issue was decided, it is NOT always the case.

Remember, of that 1000 fighters, how many turned back? Is this a difficult concept? I'm not being sarcastic, but this question comes up over and over.

Escorts went in RELAYS. They did NOT all go in a gaggle, even if the escorts were all capable of going the whole way. They met up with the bomber stream, hopefully, at a certain point, then escorted for awhile, then went home.

At any given point on the mission there would not be 1000 planes with the bombers. Huge numbers at the start and finish, fewer and fewer as the stream went farther and farther.

There was a decisive air battle fought over Europe in early 1944. As I said, at any given point past the P-47's range, there would most likely be ONE AAF group of three squadron covering the entire bomber stream.

Slickun
04-22-2005, 02:09 PM
I think the 109 had a very cramped cockpit. The P-51's was not much bigger. Called the "Spam Can" by its pilots, mostly for the unfinished metal edges everywhere, it was not that roomy.

AAF pilots were often unable to get out of their plane after a mission.

Slickun
04-22-2005, 02:12 PM
I took it that way. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

However, if he was attacking bombers within the range of P-47's, I have no doubts there often was a pack of them after him after his pursuit curve.

Those Jug pilots were HUNGRY.

Norris[/QUOTE]
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by NorrisMcWhirter:
? I'm pathetic? I'm just conjecturing to show that you can make any old point by being selective. The same selectiveness that, as I said, introduces misconceptions in the first place.

i.e. my post was, as usual, sarcastic.



I took it that way.

However, if he was attacking bombers within the range of P-47's, I have no doubts there often was a pack of them after him after his pursuit curve.

Those Jug pilots were HUNGRY.

Norris <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Slickun
04-22-2005, 02:16 PM
This has been a very enjoyable thread for me. I pledge to keep my posts free of personal attacks of any sort, and treat all posters with respect and politeness.

Lets keep it going.

Aaron_GT
04-22-2005, 03:07 PM
"Remember, of that 1000 fighters, how many turned back? Is this a difficult concept? "

[edit: sorry I hadn't read your whole post before replying so I see now what you were getting at. See the second reply]

Aaron_GT
04-22-2005, 03:15 PM
"Escorts went in RELAYS. They did NOT all go in a gaggle, even if the escorts were all capable of going the whole way. They met up with the bomber stream, hopefully, at a certain point, then escorted for awhile, then went home."

I know, I made the point about local superiority of numbers being with the LW at times.

Aaron_GT
04-22-2005, 03:22 PM
Eric Brown's comments on the 109's cockpit:

"space was so confined that movement of the head was difficult for even a pilot of my limited stature."

and

"once I had climbed into its claustrophobic cockpit, it felt lethal!"

I don't have any quotes from Brown on the P-51 cockpit, though.

Slickun
04-22-2005, 06:32 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Aaron_GT:
Eric Brown's comments on the 109's cockpit:

"space was so confined that movement of the head was difficult for even a pilot of my limited stature."

and

"once I had climbed into its claustrophobic cockpit, it felt lethal!"

I don't have any quotes from Brown on the P-51 cockpit, though. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Well, here's a few from my Dad, from an oral history I did with him.

We called it the Spam Can because of all the unfinished metal in it. You always wore gloves in the cockpit.

You wore the P-51. The cockpit in the P-47 was much roomier.

The cockpit layout in the P-51 was about as good as I flew in.

When you threw the stick over in the P-51 your head hit the opposite canopy.


Anyway, Dad was a slightly larger than average guy. He felt the P-51, while not cramped, was not roomy either.

horseback
04-22-2005, 06:51 PM
First of all, a point: The Air War was OVER for all intents and purposes by late fall of 1944. The Luftwaffe, and particularly its fighter arm, had been halved and halved again by this point, and except for a few diehard true believers, most of the remaining pilots were just looking to survive the war.

In the West, there are four distinct phases of the air war in which the Americans took part. The first was the period of German dominance, sort of the tail end of the RAF's 'Leaning Forward into Europe' campaign, which took place during 1941-2. The Germans held the whip hand well into 1943 with the Focke-Wulf's superiority over the Spitfire Mk V, and the experience edge over the few American fighter units operating at that time under British tutelage.

The second was the period of 8th Fighter Command's expansion into a viable combat force in the fall of 1943 through the early winter of 1944. In 1943, the armor began to crack. Had the Kanalfront geschwaderen made a concerted effort to hammer the American fighter units just starting to operate the (still largely experimental) P-47, they would never have had the chance to develop the individual skills or unit tactics and morale necessary to survive and eventually conquer.

Instead, like early Native Americans 'counting coup', they provided a few rough tutoring sessions but largely left the escorts alone and tried to get around them to the bombers. Politically, that was the expedient course because bombers were the aircraft harming the German war effort, but the fighter force was what eventually destroyed the Luftwaffe.

The P-47 groups learned and grew in strength and skill, to be eventually joined by other groups which they shared their knowledge and techniques with, including the first Mustang Groups. By late 1943, the jagdewaffe was in the habit of avoiding the fighters. That allowed the Americans to take, and keep the initiative, which is everything in a fight.

The third period was the destruction of the Luftwaffe as an effective force; this was accomplished in two major phases, before and after D-Day. Before D-Day, the bombers were primarily used as bait to draw up the experienced core of the LW for the escorts to kill at high altitudes, while the RAF kept up the pressure along the Channel and at medium-low altitudes with Spit Mk IXs and Typhoons joined by the 9th AF as it gained strength. After D-Day, all Allied fighter forces that could be packed into the sky over Western Europe were engaged, by which time the cream of the LW's fighter pilots had largely been rendered hors de combat, and the remaining few too busy trying to survive that they had little time to pass their skills on to their younger comrades. For all intents and purposes, this phase ended by the start of winter, 1944.

The final phase was largely mopping up; the jagdewaffe was essentially fighting a guerrilla war, most of the veterans of the glory years dead or so worn out they were next to ineffective, and the teenagers were finding their way into the cockpits of the Doras and Gustavs and K-4s, of which there were plenty, but of much poorer quality than those of a short year before and had little fuel available. Above Germany proper they could still make a showing in numbers that would have been impressive a year before, but the poor air discipline kept them from being very effective, and the Allies' numbers had grown exponentially over the same period. Except for a few mainly lucky individuals who were able to make repeated contact with the enemy, there were few new US aces of the air to air variety during this period.

This last period is the one the lufties always refer to, rather than recognize that the Allies had not held the advantage as little as a year earlier, when the Merlin Mustang first appeared with its seven league boots, practically alone over Central Europe for four months.

cheers

horseback

PS - I have had the good fortune to sit in a D model Mustang's cockpit when I was somewhat less broad of beam than I am today; at 5'9" (approx 175cm) and 165lbs (73 kg), I found it fairly roomy, although I was in shirtsleeves at the time. AFAIK, the B/C models were very similar, although the 'clamshell' canopy would have been a little closer overhead than the bubbletop or Malcolm hoods.

SkyChimp
04-22-2005, 07:11 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Aaron_GT:
Eric Brown's comments on the 109's cockpit:

"space was so confined that movement of the head was difficult for even a pilot of my limited stature."

and

"once I had climbed into its claustrophobic cockpit, it felt lethal!"

I don't have any quotes from Brown on the P-51 cockpit, though. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I think Brown said of the P-51's cockpit, "It fit like a pair of ***-kicking karate pants."

Aaron_GT
04-23-2005, 01:11 AM
"You wore the P-51. The cockpit in the P-47 was much roomier."

No doubt on the P-47 cockpit being roomier!

How tall is your father? It might have relevance, as Brown was definitely not a big man.

RAF pilots liked the P-51 as its cockpit was so much roomier than that of the Spitfire. The 109 cockpit was roughly on a par, volume wise, with that of the 109. I would expect that there were maximum height restrictions on who could become Spitfire or 109 pilots.

Aaron_GT
04-23-2005, 01:13 AM
"PS - I have had the good fortune to sit in a D model Mustang's cockpit when I was somewhat less broad of beam than I am today; at 5'9" (approx 175cm) and 165lbs (73 kg), I found it fairly roomy, although I was in shirtsleeves at the time. "

I think that 5' 9" was about the average male height at the time (it's closer to 6' these days). I've never got the chance to sit in a Spitfire cockpit, but I am over 6' and looking from the outside at Spitfires I get the impression they'd have to grease me up to get me in there :-)

NorrisMcWhirter
04-23-2005, 02:42 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Aaron_GT:
"You wore the P-51. The cockpit in the P-47 was much roomier."

No doubt on the P-47 cockpit being roomier!

How tall is your father? It might have relevance, as Brown was definitely not a big man.

RAF pilots liked the P-51 as its cockpit was so much roomier than that of the Spitfire. The 109 cockpit was roughly on a par, volume wise, with that of the 109. I would expect that there were maximum height restrictions on who could become Spitfire or 109 pilots. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I've had a decent look in a Spit cockpit and it did look quite cramped but I was under the impression that it was 'roomier' than that of the 109. I think this was suggested in one of those Channel 5 'noddy and to be taken with a pinch of salt history channel Spitfire vs 109' affairs where, IIRC, they had (possibly) Bob Doe and a LW pilot sit in each other's usual ride. I think the outcome was that the Spit was a little larger but certainly easier to bale out of because of the hinged 109 canopy.

Ta,
Norris

WOLFMondo
04-23-2005, 09:18 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by horseback:
First of all, a point: _The Air War was OVER for all intents and purposes by late fall of 1944_. The Luftwaffe, and particularly its fighter arm, had been halved and halved again by this point, and except for a few diehard true believers, most of the remaining pilots were just looking to survive the war. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

That is quite contrary to what was happening down low where the 2nd TAF was operating.

Blackdog5555
04-23-2005, 01:58 PM
Hey Horseback, the war was over the first day of Barbarossa. Only the smart ones knew it. Then the Axis slit its own throat the day it declared war on the US. No need to split the war up in 3 eras. But your point about LW running away from escort is correct. Its been well posted that the LW would concentrate in high numbers (in the hundreds)away from escorts and only go after bombers. One reason the P47 had a only a .7% loss from combat. Also one reason the P38 had low kill numbers. LW would dive away from them. P38s wouldnt follow.

NorrisMcWhirter
04-24-2005, 04:24 AM
I agree with you, BD, but wager that the war was over before that.

I think there is a quote in one of Antony Beevor's books where one of the high ranking German officers was asked, in front of Russian reporters, what had been thought of as the turning point of the war and he replied that it was the Battle of Britain. Barbarossa simply sealed that loss.


Ta,
Norris

han freak solo
04-24-2005, 08:58 AM
Back in 1986, I got to sit in a Bf-109 Cockpit at a Confederate Air Force Wing at the West Houston Airport. The 109 was being restored and its wings were not installed. However, it was sitting on it extended landing gear in the usual nose high stance of a ready to go aircraft.

Back then I was only 140 lbs at 5 feet 9 inches. That cockpit was as tight as a Malibu Grand Prix car. (I worked at Malibu GP in '82-'83, if y'all remember the cars). It felt as if my shoulders were going to rub the sides of the cockpit, even though they really didn't. Forward vision compared to the Cessna 152 I had learned to fly was non-existant.

What I remember most is the boot straps on the rudder pedals. It never occured to me to strap my feet in such a way.