1. #11
    BfHeFwMe's Avatar Banned
    Join Date
    Feb 2003
    Posts
    1,224
    Define a WWII era 'Test Pilot'. What do you mean by that term, AFAIK there was no test pilot ratings, certainly not USAAC military ones.

    By Test Pilot are simmers refering to an experianced Combat Pilot, a Factory Civil Pilot, or None Combat Military Pilot.

    Rather important distinction that never seems to be questioned. I'd rather a combat pilots perspective, or testing records any day. At least they have a clue of what features are tactically and technically most important.<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

    Valencia, returning in his shot-up but airworthy Hellcat after his harrowing February 1944 mission over Truk, summed up the thoughts of many pilots about Hellcats: ?If they could cook, I?d marry one.?
    Share this post

  2. #12
    heywooood's Avatar Senior Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Posts
    4,901
    NACA tested the Mustangs after the war..much was do***ented there.

    Those pilots were drawn from every catagory you have listed.

    Combat veteran pilots that took assignments from NACA or from the Army Air Corp were given elite status and their reports carried extra weight - they were also the ones regularly tasked with the more challenging structural and rigorous combat flight regime type testing as well as type comparison testing for combat fitness and tactics for US service pilots to take to war.

    Captured Zeros' and FW190's among others were comparison tested this way to determine their structural strengths as well as their vulnerabilities in various flight attitudes and speeds - so an edge could be gained in combat.

    These pilots would have to know exactly what US planes could do in every flight regime to be able to assess what the enemy planes could or could not do - for that you must have accurate and honest evaluations or first hand experience in current - in theater aircraft. It is vital. Lives depend on the truth not propaganda.

    Just saying there was no official terminology or designation "TEST PILOT" in the USAAC does not mean there was no one doing it and no written accounts.<div class="ev_tpc_signature">



    A few of The Few



    Share this post

  3. #13
    VW-IceFire's Avatar Senior Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2003
    Posts
    13,646
    Originally posted by BfHeFwMe:
    Define a WWII era 'Test Pilot'. What do you mean by that term, AFAIK there was no test pilot ratings, certainly not USAAC military ones.

    By Test Pilot are simmers refering to an experianced Combat Pilot, a Factory Civil Pilot, or None Combat Military Pilot.

    Rather important distinction that never seems to be questioned. I'd rather a combat pilots perspective, or testing records any day. At least they have a clue of what features are tactically and technically most important.
    Well Jeffery Quill when you talk about Spitfire test pilots...thats the guy. Boscombe and Down is the place for RAF test pilots. I'd say any NACA testing is also well do***ented.<div class="ev_tpc_signature">


    Find my missions at Flying Legends and Mission4Today.com.
    Share this post

  4. #14
    pilot has to say about the beast and its habits, bad or otherwise...

    Most of those behaviors are doc u mented in the Mustang's Pilot Operating Handbook.<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

    Support the White 1 Foundation!

    The White 1 Foundation was started to facilitate the museum quality conservation, display, study, restoration, and operation of the Focke Wulf FW 190 F8, known by its WWII call sign, White 1. In doing so, we are preserving parts of World history in a living memorial to all people who lost their lives in the war. We are preserving an integral part of great aerial battles which once filled the skies.

    Of some, parts of this aircraft are the only traces which remain.


    http://www.white1foundation.org/
    Share this post

  5. #15
    Rjel's Avatar Senior Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2002
    Posts
    1,260
    Originally posted by VW-IceFire:
    If you're referring to my post them my problem is with the "legend" of the plane getting infront of the abilities of the plane. Some aircraft have no legend and people put them on a fairly even footing. Others like the Mustang, Spitfire, and 109 have a legend to live up to. So we read some anecdote about the plane and expect it to be true 100% of the time. Which is never the case regardless of the plane.
    No, I wasn't pointing to your post in particular. But like you said, certain A/C have become ledgendary due to their historical importance and accomplishments. For whatever reason, the Mustang, along with a couple of other planes in the IL2 series have generated a lot of debate. I think too, that a lot of us who do admire the plane feel it's been neutered in various patches of this game. While 99% of us have not a clue how the real plane flew, enough posts have been made that put up a substantial amount of doc-u-mentation (geez, can the mods do something about the way this webite censors words with C_U_M in them?) to at least get the P-51 to where it is today in this sim. I hope it doesn't change if there is a final patch coming. I like it as it flies right now.<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

    ______________________________________________

    The man's prayer from The Red Green Show -
    I?m a man, but I can change, if I have to, ?. I guess.

    And remember - keep your stick on the ice.
    Share this post

  6. #16
    Xiolablu3's Avatar Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Posts
    8,755
    I am glad you guys agree the p51 is good now, as I also feel it is.

    I thought a lot fo you were expecting it to be another SPitfire, which it was never going to be.

    Test pilots reports are more important than combat accounts, becasuase test pilots have flown lots of different types to compare.

    When a guy who has only flown a P51 and some trainers, then obviously hes going to say the P51 is incredible, and 'the best plane ever', 'I'm still alive and shot down X number of planes in it'. Wheras someone who has flown a Me109, FW190, Spitfire , P51, P38 etc can compare them and say for real what the good points and bad points of the aircraft are.

    Although they can be useful, you must use them in conjunction with Science facts (Wing loading, Power Loading, Top speed, Climb rate, Firepower, Roll rate etc) and test pilots reports to gain a picture of the planes abilities, never the Combat accounts on their own.

    You can find combat accounts which say absolutely everything about a plane 'I out-turnd the 109 easily' , 'I climbed and caught him easily' and so on, but we dont know enough about the situation, the planes states, the pilots experience with other planes' to be able to take these accounts as definite evidence.

    We MUST listen to people who have flown a lot of different types, use scientific facts and try to compare them accordingly, if we are trying to build a picture of how good planes are.

    This is why this piece of writing in the OPs post is important. He has obviously flown quite a few different types and is listing some of the planes faults as well as its abilities.<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

    --------------------------------------------------------------------
    "I despise what you say; I will defend to the death your right to say it."
    -Voltaire
    Share this post

  7. #17
    WWMaxGunz's Avatar Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2002
    Posts
    4,792
    I would not expect any pilot who tried out different planes to know the real ins and outs
    of all of them or even most of them. How many pilots that flew P-47's had the same view
    of the plane as Robert Johnson based on what he could do with one? Not many, really.
    For sure, not the Russians! I can say the same that a minority of pilots that flew the
    P-38's really knew how to do much with them and never tried. Ditto and more of the P-39
    amongst western pilots though a few have made very favorable remarks about them while so
    many had only bad things to say.

    Test pilots? Read Charles Yeager's autobiography. He tells about test pilots. They did
    work for the manufacturer but stood on their own professionalism. Most WWII combat pilots
    did not have the control and discipline to become test pilots. Many could not make the
    transition to multi-engine planes after the war either. So why go by their quotes as if
    those are the last word complete truth on whatever subject Joe Wannabe wants to attach
    them to? All these guys are human and none could do everything possible, even the test
    pilots. At least the tests, full docvment, has the conditions and methods listed.
    Share this post

  8. #18
    Xiolablu3's Avatar Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Posts
    8,755
    You misunderstand what I am trying to say WWMAXGuns, if it is me you are replying to.

    I was saying Testing and Science facts are most important when trying to determine aircraft characteristics etc, then test pilots reports which compare different types, then MAYBE pilot combat reports which you have to take with a pinch of salt because we dont know anything about the pilots, states of both planes etc.


    I think we actually agree, but how you have written your post, it looks like you are disagreeing with me?

    EDIT : Nevermind, I realised you are replying to everyone, not just me.

    Share this post

  9. #19
    WOLFMondo's Avatar Senior Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Posts
    4,906
    Originally posted by BfHeFwMe:
    Define a WWII era 'Test Pilot'. What do you mean by that term, AFAIK there was no test pilot ratings, certainly not USAAC military ones.

    By Test Pilot are simmers refering to an experianced Combat Pilot, a Factory Civil Pilot, or None Combat Military Pilot.

    Rather important distinction that never seems to be questioned. I'd rather a combat pilots perspective, or testing records any day. At least they have a clue of what features are tactically and technically most important.
    Test pilots at the RAE in Farnborough were mostly ex fighter or bomber pilots and the RAE had ranks of its own, its own flights and leaders.

    The most famous wartime test pilot was Eric Brown who started flying F4F's of HMS Audacity on runs to Malta and has kills to his credit, he also holds the world record for number of aicraft types flown (including all of the Luftwaffe planes that made if of the napkin .

    Roland Beaumont was also a test pilot for a long time and he was also a Squadron Leader and led the development of both the Typhoon and Tempest. Also an 'ace'.<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

    Cheers!!
    Share this post

  10. #20
    Originally posted by BrotherVoodoo:
    Nice read, thanks for sharing. IMHO I think the P51 flies better than it ever did in 4.07 and I am enjoying flying it.
    Agreed. With 4.07, the in-game P-51 is finally a decent representative of its real life counterpart as you cite.

    GR142-Pipper
    Share this post