Senior Member
So much depends on the individual skill of pilots, the state of their aircraft, and the tactical situation that one should be careful about assertions regarding capability. Not only that, real aircrew often did things which flew in the face of simworld conventions. A year ago I was stunned to be told by a WWII Hellcat pilot ,who operated from carriers, that they never used trim tabs except on long distance flights over the U.S. If a simpilot made such an admission, he would be pilloried. Further, they flew with hood open and goggles always down (in the event of a fire). To him the greatest sin against safety was to remove goggles and gloves which left pilots in danger of burns. Johnny Johnson relates at least one incident in his autobiography of an early mark Fw190 out-turning his Spit V. Conventional wisdom would declare against this. A very hot pilot like Johnson would not make an admission like that lightly. During the Battle of Britain, the Ministry of Aircraft Production ran air tests on many Hurricanes to determine how well they matched the standard performance figures. The mean was so broad they came to the conclusion the standard stats had to be considered useless. Statistics are indications, not set in marble
Good observations. It's like Churchill said-there are "Lies, d@mned lies, and statistics."
Banned
There are always odd exceptions, such as "factory freaks", or maybe a bolt not being tightened properly, or a tool left behind, or who knows what.
But the fact is that a given design will give a given performance, and tolerances and mistakes aside, all copies of that design will have roughly the same performance (within a margin).
Sims just need to decide if they want to recreate the design potential, or a rough approximation of actual use/potential.
The latter causes problems in cases where pilots universally adopt a certain tactic, such as the 109. So we have a modern myth that the 109 was a poor turner.
If going by the design itself, with the use of CFD and the like, we might end up with something that can appear counter to history, and that creates another problem.
The real trick is just getting to the bottom of what really happened, why, and what was really possible.
Dismissing this stuff as "just statistics" is a cop out.
Senior Member
Not in favor of relativism (throw out all statistics), but am not in favor of statistical dogmatism, and over-reliance on performance charts. Always best to leaven any documentary-statistical evidence with as much evidence from contemporary users as possible (and as fresh as possible). I learned how to use the 109 from reading about Hartmann and reading Knoke's autobiography. When I read Knoke's spring '44 diary entry about suddenly being unable to use his favorite evasion (an upward spiral) against Thunderbolts, I knew he had run into a bunch of Jugs with the new paddle prop (which Bob Johnson claimed allowed him to outclimb a Spit IX). Of course eyewitness evidence is full of pitfalls, too, but one should avoid dogmatism at all costs. I think Oleg and his rascals have sincerely tried to produce the world's best WWII aerial combat simulator and have succeeded to a degree that is truly amazing. Try something atrocious like the new BATTLE OF BRITAIN II to see the alternative.
Banned
Banned
The main thing that gets my goat with 4.02m is the fact that when online you no longer can see:
1.the AI heads move tracking other a/c.
2. Rudder, elevator and aerilon movement on other players a/c but you can on AI a/c.
To me it totally sucks. But on the other hand, for those on dialup, it might be a blessing. I can see 4.03 now, no tracers and no gauges working.
