I think this thread is a good idea, but if you want objectivity and no exaggerations, you won't find that in pilot reports.

Pilot reports are by definition subjective, not objective. And pilots are just as prone to exaggerate as every other human being.

Objectivity means quantifiable data.

These reports are a little different from the typical anecdotes which a lot of players quote.

They are written by trained pilots who have no axe to grind, who are extremely knowledgeable about aircraft in general, with a vast experience of flying aircraft types, as well as having good aeronautic theory backgrounds.

Yes, you need the hard facts as well, ie. the actual figures for wingloading, max CL, rollrates, etc. but these accounts also fill in the gaps which are often missed by the numbers.

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.

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

F-35 High AOA testing, December 2012

"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."

The more technical, objective, and detailed the report, the better. Opinion is just that, opinion and without the details of the aircraft, worthless.

For example, the RAE investigation into the flying qualities of the Bf-109 contradicts many of the "opinion" areas given in buzzsaw's accounts.

The visibility from the Bf-109 in the RAE report:

http://kurfurst.org/Tactical_trials/...ls/Morgan.html

The direct vision opening is noted as being a particularly good feature.

It could be the pilot in buzzsaw's anecdotes flew an aircraft not equipped with armored glass versus the other that was equipped with it or some other technical detail.

Point is that without the details, we do not know and outside of passing interest, the information is useless for attempts to reproduce a simulation of the experience.

Absolutely, but that data has to be gathered by a trained test pilot under measureable and defineable conditions.

The idea of flight testing is eliminate the subjective and stick to the objective.

That is why the NACA developed defined and measureable flying qualities standard during the war in conjunction with the test pilots.

I tend to agree with Doggles. I can't see how these sorts of reports, interesting as they are, would help us very much. I say that because the issues that tend to exercise us the most occur right on the edge of the performance curve. To obtain the required information for that sort of discussion, these aircraft would have to be flown right to their limits, and that's extremely unlikely for all the obvious reasons.

You obviously have not taken the time to properly read either the RAE report or the reports I have posted above. Either that or you don't understand the differences between models of the 109.

The RAE report is on a 109E3 not a 109E4, which is the subject of the two reports above which deal with 109E's. The 109E3 cockpit is much more open and has quite a bit less in the way of metal framing. The cockpit on the 109E4 is more similar to the 109G2, which is the subject of the other two reviews I have posted, than the 109E3.

I would suggest you go back and re-read the material and inform yourself before you make hastily considered comments.

By the way, the RAE report was the next item I was intending to post on this thread.

In fact, that report does contradict the other pilot accounts in certain areas, but its comments on the framing of the cockpit and views are not an example.

Some of the above reports are also contradictory, but that does not mean one cannot find value.

As I agreed, they are opinions. Relatively objective and informed opinions, but nevertheless, opinions.

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.

Apart from trying to re-litigate something which seems to be an obsession with you, what exactly is the point you are making? AFAIK Buzzsaw simply wanted to present flight reports from pilots who have flown the 109, and who have no axe to grind over whether it is some wondrous über fighter; nor am I or anyone else interested in getting into yet another one of your tedious and grandstanding "debates" over NACA's flight tests v everyone else.

Salute

The original and complete RAE report on a captured 109E3 can be found here:

http://www.ww2aircraft.net/forum/att...dling-test.pdf

You may need to be a member of the WWII Aircraft Forums to download it.

You can also see the report in a transcribed format on Kurfurst's 109 page.

http://www.kurfurst.org/Tactical_tri...ls/Morgan.html

I am not sure the version posted on Kurfurst's page is complete.

I am not going to post the entire 40 pages of that report, just the sections which I think are most relevant to the aircraft's flying characteristics.

The RAE test is undoubtably the most definitive and scientific report on the flying qualities of the aircraft, as well as its technical details. Unfortunately it is impossible to say whether or not this aircraft's engine was performing to the level which might have been achieved by an operational 109E3 in the hands of a Luftwaffe Staffel. It was one of two 109's which had originally been captured by the French Air Force, put through a series of tests by them, and then shipped over to Britain. However, the technical examination, as well as the results which could be ascertained with lower speed testing, (as for example stall speeds) and which were not dependent on maximum performance can certainly be taken as a good representation of the aircraft's capabilities.

I'll post those excerpts and my comments tommorrow.