Flying the 109: Pilot Accounts

[Crumpp]

idea of the flight qualities

You really will not get very much useful information on the flight qualities without measured data on trim condition, rigging, and CG location.

[Robo.]

Originally Posted by NZtyphoon

A good balance would be pilot reports and hard data - that way you get the idea of the flight qualities, plus the analysis of hard data.

I agree! And thanks for an interesting thread.

[ACE-OF-ACES]

Originally Posted by NZtyphoon

A good balance would be pilot reports and hard data - that way you get the idea of the flight qualities, plus the analysis of hard data.

I think your missing my point..

Note I never said combat reports (pilot accounts) are not useful and should not be used. I simply pointed out that combat reports (pilots accounts) are not useful and should not be used to validate the performance of the flight model. (see sig)

We know this to be true because if those flying qualities that we derive from combat reports (pilot accounts), other than the standard testing values were important than the flight engineers and test pilots would have demanded said test be made part of the standard testing.

But as we know, the only standard performance values they tested for in WWII was the

1) the top speed per altitude
2) the rate of climb
3) the time to climb (part of rate of climb testing but not always done)

These two sometimes three performance items made up the standard testing of aircraft in WWII.

Now is this to say that no other type of testing was done in WWII?

Of course not!

My point here is simple!

The other type of testing that was done on 'some' planes was done for specific reason. As in there was a problem with a plane or something good about a plane that they wanted to investigate further. A good example of this is the P-39. It was one of the most thoroughly tested planes in WWII! Pick just about any test you can think of and they did it to the P-39. But the point here is these additional tests were not considered important enough to make them part of the standard testing.

A good example of a test that some today feel is important but was not part of the standard testing is the roll rates and the turn rates. After WWII some realised the importance of these values and started testing for them on a more regualr bases.

But I digress

Allow me to be more specific about combat reports (pilot accounts).. They are useful to improve the immersion of the flight sim.. but sadly a lot of the flying qualities we can derive from combat reports (pilot accounts) are hard to implement on the PC (note I did not say impossible).

Take for example the 'buzz' in the control stick that some pilots felt just prior to a stall in 'some' planes.. Unless you have a force feedback joystick will will not be able to 'physically' simulate this. Some flight sim makers fudge this by using sound (creaking) to give the pilot a que he is near the stall.

A related example is the overall shutter some pilots felt in some planes just prior to a stall.. Unless you have some sort of seat shaker device (yes they do make them) you will not be able to 'physically' simulate this. Some flight sim makers fudge this by making the cockpit art shake to give the pilot a que he is near the stall.

There are other example of combat reports (pilot accounts) that can be useful to improve the 'immersion' of the flight simulator, but as noted few if any can be used to validate a flight model.

At this point you may ask "what about combat reports (pilot accounts) that are making references to one of the standard tested values?"

Sadly most if not all combat reports (pilot accounts) don't contain 'enough information' about the state of the plane the pilot is flying and 'no information' about the state of the plane the pilot is chasing or being chased by to recreate the scenario for testing.

And lets not forget that we have not even begun to point out the effect the relative pilot experience (ace vs noob) factor.. That and luck is what really is being documented in combat reports (pilot accounts).

With all that said, at this point I think/hope most people would realize combat reports (pilot accounts) should not be used to validate a flight model because they says more about the relative experience and/or luck of the pilots than the relative performance of the planes.

[Fenrir]

Aces, almost entirely agreed with one caveat; you refer to 'combat reports (pilot accounts)'.

The majority of the information posted in this thread - with the exception of the A&AEE reports - is not combat comparison data. What I mean is that the reports by Charlie Brown, Mark Hannah & Dave Southwood are in essence 'pilots notes' on characteristics they each observe in how the aircraft behaves in specific and documented flight regimes, often with well detailed observations on manifold pressures/rpms & relevant IAS and climb rates.

Whilst each pilots observations are somewhat subjective based upon types & hours flown previously and I would not take one sole example and attempt to extrapolate a flight model there from, the use of all of these reports together, especially where they document common charateristics, I would say is absolutely necessary if trying to finesse or validate an existing flight model in order to give the immersion or flavour of the aircraft in question.

I agree the use of actual period combat reports is a very sketchy basis for flight model data, especially in direct comparison with an opponents apparent capabilites - or lack thereof.