Flying the 109: Pilot Accounts
 

Salute

I thought I'd start a thread which includes Pilot accounts, both modern and historical, of what the flight characteristics of the various 109 models was.

I will begin in the next post with the account I already posted, by Dave Erdos, a modern Warbird pilot, of flying "White 14", the 109E based in Ontario Canada and follow that with another account by another pilot describing his experience also flying White 14, plus "Black 6".

The idea of this thread is to provide objective accounts, free from hyperbole, of the actual aircraft characteristics.

Hope to post further accounts of flying Spitfires, Hurricanes, etc.

Salute All

Rob Erdos is a former Canadian Armed Forces military pilot, and now is a senior test pilot with the National Research Council's Flight Research Laboratory in Ottawa. (Canada's equivalent of NASA) He is also the manager of Warbirds at VINTAGE WINGS, a non profit society in Ottawa Canada which operates quite a number of Warbirds, including a Spitfire XVI, P-51D, Hurricane II and IV, KittyHawk III, (P-40N), Corsair ID, Lysander, F-86 Sabre, Harvard and Tiger Moth, as well as other vintage civilian aircraft. He also occasionally is invited to fly other Vintage Warbirds, including the only regularly flown 109E in the world, which is based in southern Ontario Canada, the aircraft is "White 14", recovered in Russia and rebuilt.

You may have seen videos of this aircraft, here is another one: (not being flown by Rob this time)

[video=youtube;jNUNJ5wdBZc]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jNUNJ5wdBZc[/video]

And here is Rob's evaluation. Note that this aircraft does not have weapons or ammunition, or armour, and the original radio has been replaced by a lighter modern one. So it is approx. 250 kg lighter than the original fully equipped 109E.

http://www.vintagewings.ca/Portals/0...ies/Erdos8.jpg

Note his comments about the rollrate of the 109E not being any better than the Spitfire are based on his own experience in flying later model Spitfires with metal ailerons, the Spit I had fabric ailerons, thus not as good a rollrate.

His comments about taxing, taking off and landing in the 109E are particularly relevant. The game 109E has none of these characteristics, in fact it is just as prone as the Spitfire and Hurricane to tipping over on its nose, not accurate at all. Neither are the directional issues apparent in the game aircraft. Other characteristics which are absent or muted are the precessional, yaw and trim effects at high throttle/low speed, as well as the sideslip characteristics at various other speeds.

Another video of the same plane, this one in HD:

[video=youtube;0cLmBZWDyBM]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0cLmBZWDyBM&playnext=1&list=PL6901DDBAE600 2821&feature=results_main[/video]

Salute

The following is an account by Charlie Brown, (no not that one), an active RAF pilot who began his involvement with Warbirds flying Spitfires with Historic Flying Ltd. at Audley End in Britain. He was subsequently asked to become a display pilot for "Black Six", the 109G2 which flew for many years. He then became the Warbirds pilot who was assigned all the post restoration flight testing for "White 14", the 109E which the previous report by Rob Erdos described.

Brown describes the various characteristics of both White 14 and Black 6, and the differences he noted between them. One again, note that neither of these two aircraft were equipped with weapons, ammunition, ammunition storage elements, pilot armour, or original radios. Both would be approx. 250 kgs less than historical.

This description is from the book "MESSERSCHMIDT BF109, OWNERS WORKSHOP MANUAL", which contains a great deal of very useful information regarding all marks of 109's. The book describes the details of the restoration of Black 6 to allow it to fly, and then after its unfortunate accident, the further restoration of it to display condition. There is also a great deal of historical and techical information. I am currently in the process of acquiring one, and would highly recommend those who are enthusiasts consider a purchase as well.


http://imageshack.us/a/img526/2609/covervcw.jpg

http://img254.imageshack.us/img254/2...sblacksix1.jpg

http://img21.imageshack.us/img21/582...sblacksix2.jpg

I was fortunate enough to be able to examine and take pictures of a 109F4 which is located at the Canadian Museum of Flight.

In reference to some of the comments re. the 109G's cockpit, the F model had many similarities. You for example, can see the Breech cover for the 20mm cannon center low. This 109F4 was missing a number of elements, including the Revi Gunsight.

http://imageshack.us/a/img132/6759/109cockpit.gif

Salute

The follow is another excerpt from "MESSERSCHMIDT BF109, OWNERS WORKSHOP MANUAL", and is an account by Dave Southwood, ex-RAF pilot and display pilot for "Black Six" during the time it was flying.

Black 6 was a 109G2 "Trop" model which was restored to near flawless condition, flew for many years as a display aircraft during the '90s. It crashed in the late '90s and was then restored again, but retired to permanent non-flying display status.

http://img12.imageshack.us/img12/3194/blacksix1.jpg
http://img703.imageshack.us/img703/8854/blacksix2.jpg
http://img502.imageshack.us/img502/9324/blacksix3.jpg

(CONTINUED NEXT POST)

Salute

(Continuation of the previous post)

http://img152.imageshack.us/img152/6343/blacksix4.jpg
http://img23.imageshack.us/img23/363/blacksix5.jpg

Salute

And here, also from "MESSERSCHMIDT BF109, OWNERS WORKSHOP MANUAL", is an account by Dave Southwood of the differences, as he saw it, between the Warbird Spitfires and 109s he flew. Note: He did not fly all varieties of these aircraft, and as he says, he did not fly any of the display aircraft he was entrusted with to the limits of their potential performance.

There is material on the first and last pages, before and after the account by Dave Southwood, which are not relevant to his account.

http://img254.imageshack.us/img254/2092/spit1091.jpg
http://img594.imageshack.us/img594/3240/spit1092.jpg
http://img837.imageshack.us/img837/8174/spit1093.jpg

Note that Southwood's comments about the Spitfire being unstable in pitch at "aft C.G." are in reference to later models with the additional fuselage tank loaded with fuel and would not apply to early models or aircraft at combat loading.

Great pilots notes Buzzsaw alhough i have read most of them :)

I found Mark Hanna aboult flying 109 Buchon

http://www.eaf51.org/newweb/Document...%20109_ENG.pdf

And another one:

“The Flying Gun” by Skip Holm

Flight Characteristics



The Me-109 carries its own atmosphere. People have told me that it appears ominous, sinister, and imposing, but then say that is because it definitely has the fighter look, further stating there is no doubt as to what it would have been used for. And its reputation precedes it, for any knowledge at all within the aviation world has some reference to the Messerschmitt ‘109’ fighter. I am reminded of a comment by Paul Koskela, where he says, “All Germans are Messerschmitts!”



As you walk up to the ‘109’ one is at first struck by the small size of the aircraft, particularly if parked next to a contemporary American fighter. A further look and some explanation of the engineering anomalies present a whole new understanding of this small fighter. Engineering features, such as leading edge slats, slotted flaps, hydraulic speed brakes, hydro-electric auto cooling, trimable stabilator, longitudianal auto-trim with flap extension, zero line gun angle, enclosed cockpit, and single keel structure were revolutionary in their day. Matter of fact, they all have been slowly adapted into US fighters, from the F-86 to the newest F-22.



While new and unusual innovations sound nice for next generation fighters, this grouping of engineering technologies into one airframe, considered risky in most environments, worked exceedingly well, making the Me-109 one of the most notable fighter aircraft in history.



There have been numerous reports written about the good news and bad news of operating a ‘109’. And most of these reports reside in discussions about the landing pattern, because that creates the most interest for anybody thinking about flying this machine. I have heard stories about the 10,000+ landing pattern accidents associated with Luftwaffe flight operations, and these numbers appear possible. I did not know much about the Me-109 when I started flying it, and that naivety probably contributed to making the aircraft easier to fly. Being smart about a subject isn’t always the answer!



Mark Hanna of the Old Flying Machine Company: “To my eye, the aircraft looks dangerous, both to the enemy and to its own pilots. The aircrafts difficult reputation is well known and right from the outset you are aware that it is an aeroplane that needs to be treated with a great deal of respect. Talk to people about the ‘109’ and all you hear about is how you are going to wrap it up on take-off or landing ! “



I have found out some things about flying this great fighter. It is difficult to fly, but also easy to fly -- both of these opposites can occur on the same task, on different days or simultaneously. The little fighter has a mind of its own. If it were a dog or a horse, we would call a trainer to retrain it, to get rid of its bad habits.



For all the folks that have compared the ‘109’ to any other fighter, they are at first struck by the small size of the aircraft, the type of landing gear, the stance of the aircraft, the warlike cockpit structure, and the small tail feathers. Undeniably, they also note the fact that this was the formidable war machine of the Luftwaffe, and ultimately gather around the tail, noticing and talking about the number of kills exhibited on the tail.



Quote from Me-109 observer: “It's getting dangerously close to going flying now!”



Climbing on board, you are struck by the difficulty of getting onboard, getting into the cockpit, and determining an operational sense of a German designed cockpit. The first impression of the stock Buchon cockpit in Harold’s ‘109’ is bewilderment due to the handles, wheels, switches, and color-coded lines and switches, but after some time spent understanding the layout, the cockpit becomes straight forward. The cockpit is small, about the size of a Spitfire or A-4 fighter. A cockpit check, left to right, starts with co-located elevator trim and flap trim wheels on the lower left. The flap wheel is turned to get the flaps from zero to fully down at 40º. Both the flap and trim wheel can be cranked together. Next is the trim indication window and the mixture control, both low on the left side. Directly above this is the tailwheel, lock canopy jettison handle, and throttle quadrant. The throttle quadrant consists of the propeller lever, and a huge throttle handle. The hood jettison lever consists of two very strong springs in the rear part of the canopy, causing the rear section to come loose and therefore the whole main part of the hood becomes unhinged and can be pushed clear away into the airflow. Forward and down, forward of the right knee, is a T shaped handle that is an on-off handle for both fuel and hydraulics. The standard instrument panel is directly forward, with vertical select magnetos on the left, starter and booster coil slightly right of center and engine instruments, and instruments directly ahead.



For takeoff, the manual states that take-off flaps is 20 degrees. I once took off with flaps up and that was not a pleasant situation. I believe in the 20 flap check list item. Some people say the stick must be held hard forward to get the tail up. I don’t like that technique, as you lose all the tail on the ground directional stability, and if you have a cross wind, the tail on the ground is advisable. I also find it advisable to let the airplane fly itself off, and to consciously not hurry the take-off. If the aircraft is pulled off too soon, the book says the left wing will not lift, but I have found that the downwind wing may not lift, and on applying aileron the wing lifts and falls again, with the ailerons snatching a little. If no attempt is made to pull the airplane off quickly, the take-off run is short, and the initial climb is good. Additionally, I always use lots of aileron into the wind on both takeoff, landing, and roll-out. I hold aileron into the wind until I am sure that the aircraft is in control, for if you see one slat come out asymmetrically, the wing may soon follow, and if a wing ever comes up on takeoff or landing, the excitement is just starting.



Generalleutnant Werner Funck, Inspector of Fighters, in 1939, said, “The 109 had a big drawback, which I didn't like from the start. It was that rackety - I always said rackety - undercarriage; that negative, against-the-rules-of-statistics undercarriage that allowed the machine to swing away.”



“The throttle can be opened very quickly without fear of choking the engine”. I read this in a report, but I have seen no reason to do this in the landing pattern, for the consequence if you are on the ground, is an instant swing to the left. From experience, I know that there is not sufficient rudder to hold that throttle action, so I do not do that. My technique on takeoff is to ride right rudder as I advance power. If I need more left rudder, I simply add power and do not switch rudder application on takeoff. Because the vertical is small, the rudder is the dominant directional control and a real direction response takes a while when switching from one rudder to the other. During this rudder switch, the aircraft can be doing a wild Hi-acka maneuver – not a desired experience. “Acceleration is good, and there is little tendency to swing or bucket”. I again read this from a report, prior to flying, but I did not really know what swing or bucket was. I am even now torn as to whether I want to know. I grew up on a farm and both swing and bucket were opposites, one good and one bad, so I’m again suspicious that we are in ‘109’ country. I just know when the power handle is pushed up, the puppy moves out. The takeoff takes only a few moments, all exciting, and after takeoff, the aircraft is wonderful. The gear and flaps can be raised while the nose is rotated to about 45 degrees of climb. This climb can be maintained for some time, which accounts for the high rate to climb that we see in the data.



Hauptmann Gunther Schack, 174 victories: “In March 1941, as a Gefreiter, I joined Jagdgeschwader Molders, JG 51, stationed at St. Over, France. By then I had only taken off with the ‘109’ straight into wind, and never from a concrete runway. On April 4th, during a cross-wind take-off on the concrete runway, the ‘109’ swung so much to the left that I feared it would crash into some other machines parked along the edge of the field. I closed the throttle and my first crash began. The machine swung left even more, the left undercarriage leg broke, and the ‘109’ dropped on its left wing. This happened to me twice - the second time on April 10th - and my future as a fighter pilot seemed sealed.... “



Once airborne and cleaned-up, the aircraft is a delight. A classic! And real fighter, ready to rock and roll! And the speed it loves to roll around is 250 mph and below. The roll rate is very good and very positive at 250 mph. Above 250 mph the ailerons get heavy and at 300 they are very similar to a P-51. Any speed after that results in the ailerons getting fairly solid and you need two hands on the stick for any meaningful roll rates. Most of my flights have been in formation with P-51s and the Me-109 is more maneuverable than the P-51 in most conditions. The Me-109 performs very well against the P-51 for takeoff, climb, and moderate cruise, but once the P-51 starts a dive or adds power in a level condition, the P-51 outperforms the Me-109 easily.



Pitch control is also delightful and very positive at 250 mph and below. As pitch and accompanying G is increased, the leading edge slats start to deploy. I have not found either aircraft to have any problems with asymmetrical slat deployment, as we see in other aircraft such as an A-4 for instance. The aircraft reacts very well to heavy maneuvering, and there is never any discomfort in pulling Gs, as wing separation and accompanying wing drop is mild, is easily noticed and dealt with by lightening up on the G. Pitch force tends to get heavy at speeds above 300 mph, but is still easily managed with a little 2-hand pull or left hand re-trimming.



I find the best description of the Me-109 is to call it a “Flying Gun”. It almost completely epitomizes the fighter pilot desires and engineering requirements for its designated mission as a 1940s era close-in self-defense fighter.



Dash-1 books state that stalling speeds ‘on the glide’ are 75 mph flaps up, and 61 mph flaps down. I have not been able to get stalling speeds that low, and feel that anything below 80 mph in the pattern is quite uncomfortable. Lowering the flaps causes the ailerons to get heavier and less effective, and causes a marked nose-down pitching moment.



Once back in the pattern, an overhead pitch-out approach is my preference. The aircraft is clean, so needs to be slowed down considerably prior to getting the flaps cranked down and the gear lowered. The pattern cockpit work is high, due to the trim/flap wheel requirements. Pulling both the trim and flap wheels at the same time works well in lowering flaps and re-trimming at the same time. Longitudinally, the airplane is markedly stable, even though the elevator is heavier and more responsive than most single-seat fighters. At all times, it is important to remember that the rudder is sluggish for small movements. Normal approach speed is 90 mph. At speeds above 100 mph, the pilot has the impression of diving, and below 80 mph one of sinking. At 90 mph and on final, the power is back almost to idle, and the glide path looks steep. The view looks good until getting close to the runway, then the entire runway is blanked out, with the runway edges being the guides for landing. The most obvious point to remember on the rotation-to-landing is to look out both sides of the canopy, for this will keep the aircraft straight for the touchdown. If the touchdown is not perfectly aligned to the runway, some immediate directional correction is needed, for any delay will only exacerbate the condition and give the pilot more excitement.



Major Gunther Rall, 275 victories: “The ‘109’? That was a dream, the non-plus-ultra. Just like the F-14 of today. Of course, everyone wanted to fly it as soon as possible. I was very proud when I converted to it.”

Hauptmann Gunther Schack, 174 victories: “In March 1941, as a Gefreiter, I joined Jagdgeschwader Molders, JG 51, stationed at St. Over, France. By then I had only taken off with the ‘109’ straight into wind, and never from a concrete runway. On April 4th, during a cross-wind take-off on the concrete runway, the ‘109’ swung so much to the left that I feared it would crash into some other machines parked along the edge of the field. I closed the throttle and my first crash began. The machine swung left even more, the left undercarriage leg broke, and the ‘109’ dropped on its left wing. This happened to me twice - the second time on April 10th - and my future as a fighter pilot seemed sealed.... In all, I was shot down 15 times.... On one occasion I saw the right wing of my ‘109’ flying right alongside me! During an attack on a bomber formation, I was hit by an enemy fighter, right in one of the main spar attachment lugs. Luckily, I was over 2,000 metres high, but even then I only succeeded in getting out of the crazily-spinning machine close to the ground. I crashed against the tailplane, and for the next two weeks I could only walk, bent in two....'

Fun filled fact thread :cool:

Yep, good stuff; I haven't read The Flying Gun, but I have the owner's manual, which is full of interesting technical information.

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.

Good read all of the above, thanks for posting!

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

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 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.

Good topic.

Another account by Hanna & Brown from Flight Journal

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.

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.

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

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/

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.

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

I agree! And thanks for an interesting thread.

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.

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.