Bf109 information, lighting a fuse and running for cover!

[ACE-OF-ACES]

Originally Posted by CaptainDoggles

but it's hard to make an accurate judgment because by 1944 the Luftwaffe was in a sorry state and I can't imagine many engagements occurred on equal terms. More likely the USAAF were gang-banging the Luftwaffe fighters from above with superior numbers.

I agree with everything you said.. except that above

It is a bit of a myth.. Not saying that never happened, only that it was not the case in all cases

First thing you have to consider is that it is harder to play defence.. The US planes had to out number the enmy because they had to cover the B17s from all sides.. Left, Right, Rear, and Front.. Where as the Lw would gather up all thier planes and make an attack from one of those sides..

For example, say there were 100 escorts and only 40 enemy planes attacking

The 100 would be split up into 25 rear, 25 left, 25 right, and 25 front.. So if the Lw attacked with all 40 planes from the left.. it would result in a 40 vs 25 fight.. Now conisder that most of these fights only lasted a few min.. It was over by the time the other three groups would make their way over to the fight

So, in that case you can see that 'per fight' it was not allways the case that the Lw was out numbered.. As in 5 US vs 1 Lw.. If anything it was the other way around

And before anyone jumps me here.. Note I am not saying this was the case in every case.. All I am pointing out is the idea a Lw 109 fighter was allways outnumbered (jumped by 4 or more Mustangs) in every case is a myth

[ACE-OF-ACES]

It is also a bit of a myth that the USAAF allways had a altitude advantage.. The Lw would enter the area at a hight above that of the bombers.. Just ecanse the escorts picked them up prior to the B17s.. They knew the escorts hung out above the bombers..

Granted once the Lw got into position to attack the bombers.. they would dive down to the bombers giving up the alt advantage.. but at the same time trading alt for speed

[ACE-OF-ACES]

And it should also be noted that the Lw was not interested in shooting down the escorts.. They avoided them at all cost.. The goal was to get to the bombers.. Many a poor 109 was shot down while trying to line up the B17 as a P51 snuck up the 109s rear.. Long story short, the dog fight was the exception to the rule.. Where each fighter knew he was in a fight with the other.. Most pilots were shot down before they even knew they were in a fight.. Which was the case for most if not all of Hartmans victums due to Hartmans never turn tatics

[5./JG27.Farber]

Anyway back to this website... (and all the others like it)

I was talking to a Aeronautical engineer over steam (I will let him name himself if he wishes) he basically said something like, "just like any other flight page, this is grains of truth mixed with BS..."

So I guess what we have learned here is that none of the information we ever find will give us definative answears on aircraft performance... These debates of this source said this and that source said that will just continue... Would be nice if we just new the right physics for the game but I suppose it will always be a bit of science and a bit of legend...

[CaptainDoggles]

Originally Posted by 5./JG27.Farber

Anyway back to this website... (and all the others like it)

I was talking to a Aeronautical engineer over steam (I will let him name himself if he wishes) he basically said something like, "just like any other flight page, this is grains of truth mixed with BS..."

Most flight websites are like this, but there are some good ones out there. You have to be literate in the underlying math and physics to discern between the two, though.

So I guess what we have learned here is that none of the information we ever find will give us definative answears on aircraft performance... These debates of this source said this and that source said that will just continue... Would be nice if we just new the right physics for the game but I suppose it will always be a bit of science and a bit of legend...

It's always science.

The problem is that aircraft performance is complicated stuff, and this is compounded by the fact that aircraft design was a nascent art at the time. Lessons were still being learned, and they don't necessarily do stuff the same way we do things now.

On top of that, things get lost over the years and much of the available data is incomplete.

Aircraft performance is ideally recorded in conjunction with the atmospheric conditions on the day the test was flown. That data is then converted to standard atmospheric conditions. The data is supposed to represent an idealized aircraft flying in the standard atmosphere, and engineers understand that aircraft performance exists as a range of values within an acceptable tolerance.

Test data can often contradict other test data. Sometimes the reasons for the contradiction can be discovered if there is qualitative data accompanying the test. Often this data does not exist or is insufficient and so the difference cannot be resolved. This is where the "legend' bit comes into play.

[5./JG27.Farber]

Yes yes. All of these conclusions are what I expected. Gentleman you have been part of an experiment!

You see in the next release we will see FM/DM tweeks... We will see arguments for this and that... Those who back the RAF will be dubbed "fanboise" and those who back the Luftwaffe will be called "Luftwhiners"... So by proposing my information first with a fail we can take a good long hard look at variuos sources and subject them to "our laymen brains" and that of experts - with a pinch of salt and realise we just might be wrong!

Hope this helps avoid any arguments of FM/DM tweeks in the near future!

[CaptainDoggles]

Originally Posted by 5./JG27.Farber

Yes yes. All of these conclusions are what I expected. Gentleman you have been part of an experiment!

You see in the next release we will see FM/DM tweeks... We will see arguments for this and that... Those who back the RAF will be dubbed "fanboise" and those who back the Luftwaffe will be called "Luftwhiners"... So by proposing my information first with a fail we can take a good long hard look at variuos sources and subject them to "our laymen brains" and that of experts - with a pinch of salt and realise we just might be wrong!

Hope this helps avoid any arguments of FM/DM tweeks in the near future!

Good effort, but you're going to be disappointed. Many people have agendas, and the VVS are a particularly polarizing subject.

[ACE-OF-ACES]

Originally Posted by cheesehawk

That and the fact there aren't many viable airframes out there and the owners willing/able to test the real performances in the name of science. Some things are simply now passed to legend...

It is true that most of the warbirds around today are not in their original WWII configurations..

The good news is most WWII planes were tested and a lot of those test results still exist.. The bad news is not every field mod and or variant of a particular plane was re-tested..

The sim makers use these test results (outputs) as a sanity check of their FM.. That is to say the data from these test reports are not used as inputs to create the FM (unless your talking about a simple table based FM) just used as a check of the FM

Pretty simple, the FM results match the test data results or they don't.. So one would think that would be the end of the discussion, right?

Well sadly no

As noted you will be hard pressed to find test data for every variant of every plane in the game.. And even when you do find data for a particular variant in the game there will be people standing by to give it a thumbs up or a thumbs down.. For example, some will toss out the 'theory' that the Russian data was 'tweaked' to show the planes performed better than they actually did. The theory being they did that to keep uncle Joe from cutting off their heads.. Same argument is made with regards to some of the late war German data.. A similar argument is applied to US planes.. Especially with regards to test results from the manufacture.. The idea that the manufacture has tweak the results to show the plane performed better than they actually did to sell their plane.. Problem with that argument is USAAF also did acceptant testing that shows there was typically no tweaks made.. At least I have yet to see anyone post the results done by the manufacture that far exceeded what the USAAF was able to obtain.

Personally I tend to ignore all those who float those 'theories' especially the ones that will float the 'theory' for the planes they don't like and not even consider the possibility of the 'theory' for the planes they like (read hypocrites)

The only area of real world test data that I would consider to be suspect is that of the calculated/estimated type. That is to say data that was not from an actual flight test, just desk top calculated results based on what they expected to see if they actually did the test.. For example say they have a plane that they have already tested.. Than later figured out a way to increase the horse power.. Instead of re-doing the actually flight test, they would start with the flight test results from the previous test and simply increase the top speed and climb rate by an amount they 'calculated' it would increase by due to the increase in horse power. This is the kind of data that should be taken with a grain of salt imho, and on that note this is the kind of data the Germans did a lot of near the end of the war.

Long story short, even if you could find a WWII war plane with a WWII configuration and an owner willing to put it threw the paces of a test.. You will find someone who will try to find something wrong with the data.

[ACE-OF-ACES]

Originally Posted by cheesehawk

So true, and it seems the data we have from the war period doesn't cover everything we would think of now (i.e. roll rate progression, acceleration are some I've never seen referenced data on, although my research is mainly limited to what you can find on the internet),

True.. the standard acceptant testing consisted of a top speed per altitude test and a rate of climb test.. Which typically also produced a time to climb test.. Very few roll rate tests were done, and even fewer acceleration testing was done. It wasn't until just after the end of WWII that they switched to Ps testing for fighters

Originally Posted by cheesehawk

and funny hand drawn graphs that aren't posted at the Imperial War Museum or the Bundeswehr Military History Museum, leaves too much room for suspicion on accuracy.

Ya lost me there.. ?

Originally Posted by cheesehawk

Add to that the somewhat contradictory testimonies of the pilots, and no wonder we have wildly differing opinions on what each of our beloved aircraft should do.

Bingo!

I have an old saying.. For every Spitfire pilot that said he could easily out turn a Bf-109 there is a Bf-109 pilot that says he could easily out turn a Spitfire

Which only proves that combat reports by combat pilots are not something the FM results should be based on.. For many reasons, like they typically are one sided stories, typical preformed under none standard conditions, typically don't contain enough information to recreate the scenario..

In the end combat reports say more about the realitive pilot skills/luck than the planes performance

[CaptainDoggles]

Originally Posted by ACE-OF-ACES

Long story short, the dog fight was the exception to the rule.. Where each fighter knew he was in a fight with the other.. Most pilots were shot down before they even knew they were in a fight..

Very true, and this is why I feel that the OP's website is silly when it makes pronouncements like "The Bf-109 was superior to the P-51"