Flying the 109: Pilot Accounts

[NZtyphoon]

Originally Posted by Crumpp

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.

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.

[*Buzzsaw*]

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.

[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

[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.

[Crumpp]

idea of the flight qualities

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

[Robo.]

Originally Posted by NZtyphoon

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.

I agree! And thanks for an interesting thread.

[ACE-OF-ACES]

Originally Posted by NZtyphoon

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.

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.