The 'Great Debate' - Spitfire vs BF109

[TomcatViP]

The Ash62 (a derived engine from the Wright Cyclone and older brother of the Ash 82) is also delightful to ear.

I was in Varradero/Cuba three weeks ago and every morning I was woke up by a low flying An2 skimming the roof top of this flat city built all in length on a finger like narrow peninsula. I don't know what those guys where doing but I did ear them 3 day in a row. My room was in a small building at the 3rd floor and the last day I had the time to jump out of the bed and run to the balcony just to see it nearly in profile and fully hear that beautiful grave tone that reveal nearly each stroke of its engine.

The girl that day might hve been really confused to see me getting exited that way oooops

[fruitbat]

one of the best if not very usual sounds i've ever heard was an i16 at Duxford 2 years ago.

kinda sounds like its chewing itself apart!

[Ze-Jamz]

Originally Posted by fruitbat

one of the best if not very usual sounds i've ever heard was an i16 at Duxford 2 years ago.

kinda sounds like its chewing itself apart!

Haha..yea i was there and heard that...

[TomcatViP]

Originally Posted by fruitbat

one of the best if not very usual sounds i've ever heard was an i16 at Duxford 2 years ago.

kinda sounds like its chewing itself apart!

Ash62 = M25

[ATAG_Snapper]

A little-known fact about the Real Life Mark I & II Spitfires of 1940 Battle of Britain fame is that the pilots could slide the canopy back at any speed to listen for enemy a/c sneaking up from behind. The 109's couldn't do this because of their inferior side-opening canopy design. The Cliffs of Dover sim models this perfectly. I can't put my hands on any documentation of this, but I read it on the Internet, so it must be true.

[Sammi79]

Originally Posted by ATAG_Snapper

A little-known fact about the Real Life Mark I & II Spitfires of 1940 Battle of Britain fame is that the pilots could slide the canopy back at any speed to listen for enemy a/c sneaking up from behind. The 109's couldn't do this because of their inferior side-opening canopy design. The Cliffs of Dover sim models this perfectly. I can't put my hands on any documentation of this, but I read it on the Internet, so it must be true.

Undoubtably. This would prove an adequate defense even against the Sea Furies, whose characteristic loud motors would give them away from about 2 kilometers.

[5./JG27.Farber]

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

However whilst its still open, I'd like to point out the following:

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".

[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?