Flying the 109: Pilot Accounts

[Robo.]

Good read all of the above, thanks for posting!

[SlipBall]

Some good reading here...All in all I'm alright with the 109 they gave us here in game...the one thing that I would like to see worked on is the brakes. I have read that the aircraft had no tendency to be nose heavy when applying them

[CaptainDoggles]

Originally Posted by Kwiatek

Paper data dont tell you exaclay how a plane would behave in the air and in the ground. Such pilots reports are very usefull expecially if you are pilot and you want to know what you should expect from a reported plane. For a pilot such notes are really important expecially if you haven't flown before such type of plane. It is common that before you fly new type of plane you ask more experience pilots about some tips and it is something like pilots code which is understandable for another pilot.

Originally Posted by NZtyphoon

Ditto - raw data cannot describe how an aircraft flying in real world conditions will respond: test pilots still test new aircraft even after terrabites of data has been crunched because it's only through pilot input, objective and subjective ("yeah, she feels like she's flying a little left wing low"), that real world data on an aircraft's characteristics can be gathered. The aircraft that has been designed and successfully tested using paper data alone has yet to be built eg;

F-35 reaches 5,000 hours of testing

"We take all of our aircraft to high AOA to look at where their departure boundaries are and how recoverable they are once they have acheived the departure boundaries....Any insights we learn...we pass on to the operator."

Let me just get this perfectly clear: Are you two suggesting that there are aspects of flight dynamics that are not possible to quantify?

Yes or no?

[CaptainDoggles]

Originally Posted by *Buzzsaw*

I would suggest those who have a disagreement with the material posted, simply state their points simply, and once, and then allow the thread to continue without the necessity for ad infinitum back and forths which is just going to clutter up the material presented.

I don't have a problem with the material; I just think that a more accurate picture would be painted if we collated as much hard data as possible.

[JtD]

Good topic.

Another account by Hanna & Brown from Flight Journal

[NZtyphoon]

Originally Posted by CaptainDoggles

Let me just get this perfectly clear: Are you two suggesting that there are aspects of flight dynamics that are not possible to quantify?

Yes or no?

I don't get what you are aiming at with all this. How about simply taking Buzzsaw's advice and forget about getting into some grandstanding debate about the value of what has been posted here, and whether the reports are of any value because they are not full of hard data. If you want 100% hard data, find flight test reports that have been written by robots.

[Gabelschwanz Teufel]

Originally Posted by CaptainDoggles

I don't have a problem with the material; I just think that a more accurate picture would be painted if we collated as much hard data as possible.

To what point, honestly? They are not going to change it. There are no more patches. If they eff it up in the sequel, then we can have a 500 page debate. This is just more beating the dead horse.

[ACE-OF-ACES]

Pilot Accounts (combat reports) provide good data with regards to flying qualities and tactics..

For example:

"I felt a slight buzz in the stick just prior to the stall".
"The plane gave no warning in the form of a shutter or stick buzz prior to the stall"

But Pilot Accounts (combat reports) provide little if any data with regards to aircraft performance let alone realitive performance.

We know this to be true, in that for every Bf109 'pilot account' that says he was able to out turn a Spitfire, there is a Spitfire 'pilot account' that says he was able to out turn a Bf109.

Therefore Pilot Accounts should be the last, if ever, data used to justify a change to the flight model performance wise.

In short see sig

[WTE_Galway]

In the end most gamers have a preconceived idea of how their favorite mount "should" perform and will pick and choose at will between flight data and pilot accounts depending on what supports there case best.

Meanwhile if you want a HUGE collection of anecdotes and historical assessments of the 109 from pilots of both sides have a look here:

http://www.virtualpilots.fi/feature/articles/109myths/

[NZtyphoon]

Originally Posted by ACE-OF-ACES

Pilot Accounts (combat reports) provide good data with regards to flying qualities and tactics..

For example:

"I felt a slight buzz in the stick just prior to the stall".
"The plane gave no warning in the form of a shutter or stick buzz prior to the stall"

But Pilot Accounts (combat reports) provide little if any data with regards to aircraft performance let alone realitive performance.

We know this to be true, in that for every Bf109 'pilot account' that says he was able to out turn a Spitfire, there is a Spitfire 'pilot account' that says he was able to out turn a Bf109.

Therefore Pilot Accounts should be the last, if ever, data used to justify a change to the flight model performance wise.

In short see sig

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.