The 'Great Debate' - Spitfire vs BF109

[Sammi79]

Originally Posted by 5./JG27.Farber

This thread will be locked in time, I garentee it!

I hope not, so far it has remained light hearted, for more than 20 replies! this seems to me to be quite unusual at the moment!

Originally Posted by 5./JG27.Farber

THere is a difference to what a pilot wrote in a book years after an event and science fact. Im not saying any of the pilots were lying! I am saying somethings that they remembered as a first hand witness might not have been actually what was happening. Fear, adrenaline, perspective, where it was viewed from and many other things go into a memory. So without actual figures from instrument recorded flights then unfortunatley all pilot accounts are "hearsay".

I see your valid point and raise you a further consideration:

In the absence of the scientific information (which can also be flawed depending on the controls of the tests etc.) the best that can be done is a meta analysis of these first hand anecdotal accounts. the mean results of the combined whole of these accounts will be more accurate than any individual account, and if that is all that there is to go on, then we should go with that IMHO.

Regards,
Sam.

[5./JG27.Farber]

Originally Posted by Sammi79

I see your valid point and raise you a further consideration:

In the absence of the scientific information (which can also be flawed depending on the controls of the tests etc.) the best that can be done is a meta analysis of these first hand anecdotal accounts. the mean results of the combined whole of these accounts will be more accurate than any individual account, and if that is all that there is to go on, then we should go with that IMHO.

Regards,
Sam.

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.

Originally Posted by fruitbat

Rubbish, although what you said has to be taken into account, to ignore first hand evidence as hearsay completely is ridiculous imo.

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

Originally Posted by bongodriver

Ver very weak argument, the recall of these guys is way more than just skewed perspectives, these are memories forged from life or death scenarios, they would have analysed and recounted them over and over as young men and would have remained as lucid as their menory of a first love.

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...

[bongodriver]

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

[5./JG27.Farber]

Originally Posted by bongodriver

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

Of course...


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.

[arthursmedley]

Originally Posted by 5./JG27.Farber

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

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.

[5./JG27.Farber]

Originally Posted by arthursmedley

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.

+1

However the graph like the memories applied sensibly in the correct ratio should be good enough. You can never please everyone.

We cant have it 100% accurate. Afterall we are all aces in the virtual world...

[TomcatViP]

Originally Posted by arthursmedley

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.

+1!

[Seadog]

Originally Posted by arthursmedley

. 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.

Very true, and the vast majority of RAF fighters were lost this way, as their primary task was to attack the bombers, thus leaving themselves open to being bounced, however this doesn't excuse Clod from poorly modelling the performance of RAF fighters.

[6S.Manu]

Originally Posted by Seadog

Very true, and the vast majority of RAF fighters were lost this way, as their primary task was to attack the bombers, thus leaving themselves open to being bounced, however this doesn't excuse Clod from poorly modelling the performance of RAF fighters.

It's probably true, but only for the Hurricanes... since the main role of Spitfires was to engage the fighters, leaving the bombers to more stable and armed Hurricanes.

[arthursmedley]

Originally Posted by 6S.Manu

It's probably true, but only for the Hurricanes... since the main role of Spitfires was to engage the fighters, leaving the bombers to more stable and armed Hurricanes.

Very popular but historically inaccurate misconception. Squadrons were ordered to scramble and engage in accordance with their availability and their proximity to approaching enemy formations. Type of aircraft flown counted for nought in the summer of 1940.