blablabla... nobody care Bongo. Keep concentrate on the subject today for once

Oh and which subject would that be then?

Then we would be better off discussing the response time of the human synaptic system or even which popular joystick on the market has a better response curve. We seem to want historically accuate flight models so we can turn them into some online ego travesty.

Agreed, like the port wing dropping in the stall first on the 109.

RoF has no data like we do for WW2 aircraft. As such their flight models are based upon this kind of info. ;)


Sorry Sammi, but the graphs are out now and that only means one thing...

Regards.


I didnt mean totally ignore first hand accounts. I ment the graphs are data are pretty concrete. The memories - not so much.



Two things that make certain its not nessicarly a accurate! - indeed.



Its the same as police witness statements. You can have ten witnesses all saying something different...

Farber...does your rule apply to the LW veterans annecdotes too?

Of course... :-P


What about the BoB pilot reports where both Spitfire and 109 pilots claimed the other NEVER turned inside of the other and vice versa? Its circumstancial to that pilots experience and perspective, place and time, air speeds and energy and the perspective of those from thier own judgement and perspective... This doesnt mean it is not true! However as there are so many conflicting reports we can only resign such reports to "folklore" and use the factually evidence of air speed climb rate etc... Only when many pilots agree on something can we consider to use it. - For example the port wing dropping near landing aproaching the stall and other such minor things.

OK, Galland states in his memoirs, The First and the Last, that he asked for an "...outfit of Spitfires, for his group..."

Inadmissible using Farbers logic, Galland wen't on to say it was out of frustration and had no bearing on how he rated the Spitfire but of course being a human recounting a tale from the past he obviously didn't know what he was speaking about and he probably really did wan't a squadron of Spitfires.

Understand that Galland was a dignitary of the Nazi regime and as such might have needed to pleased the ear of the winners. Have yuou seen the vid when he did say that ? Hve a look, you'll understand what I mean.

This anecdote was debated by historian and among prime witnesses of that "scene" when asked the question replied that they don't remember G. saying that to RMG.

But once again and blablabla...

As we have seen, graphs and the interpretation of any data can be challenged because of the number of variables involved and whether the people producing these graphs were even aware of these variables.

Pilot, sorry, eyewitness accounts and memoirs are very often contemporaeneous to the events themselves and most were written if not during the war years then in their fairly immediate aftermath with logbooks and combat reports to back it up. Both RAF and LW accounts share a remarkable commonality in their fear of the bounce, the acceptance that most pilots shot down never saw their opponents and the acceptance that following an opponent round and round and round in a dogfight would invite a hail of lead from an unseen opportunist.

Arguments on every flight sim forum I've ever visited about aeroplane performance always degenerate into some "expert" denying the veracity of pilot accounts that differ from their own dearly held views because they know their graphs hold the real truth.