Flying the 109: Pilot Accounts

[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.

[*Buzzsaw*]

Originally Posted by Crumpp

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.
.

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.

[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

[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.