12.04.2010, 21:11
Hi Ace of Aces,
You wrote: "That is the neat thing about comparing to the real world data. It removes all the 'feelings' and all that is left is the 'facts'." See, that's where I respectfully disagree with you. What exactly is the "real world data"? What are the "facts"? Performance data for aircraft were rarely, if ever recorded only for the purpose of documenting the performance of an aircraft. There are almost always other factors and agendas to be taken into consideration. There is no such thing as "objective," or "un-biased" recoding of data. The desired results will influence the findings. That's why I think that one should not take any set of data at face value, but critically evaluate them. That is why I think that studying performance data can only go so far and should ideally be combined with other avenues of research.
For example, when flying an early-model A6M-Zero in the IL-2 game, I find that the performance of the aircraft in relation to other contemporary planes is very undermodeled in regard to speed. Why do I think that? From reading accounts of Japanese and Allied pilots who flew the Zero, or who fought against it, I am under the impression that the early-model Zeros were not only better armed and more agile, but also considerably faster than the contemporary P-39s, P-40s, and F-4 Wildcats. In contrast, performance data seem to indicate that the early Zeros were actually slower than their American contemporaries. What does this mean? Does it mean that the veterans who flew these planes, or who fought against them, all have inaccurate memory? How were the performance data obtained? As far as I know, the US tested at least one captured Zero during the war and several others after the end of World War II. Let's imagine for a second that the captured Zeros tested by the Allies were actually faster than most contemporary Allied fighters. Would such information have been published or forwarded to the troops? Probably not, because it could have damaged morale considerably. Instead, what was published may well have been an "adjusted" version of the performance data that made Allied aircraft look better by portraying the Zero as slower than it actually was.
I don't know whether this really took place, but the scenario seems pretty likely to me. The same would go for Axis powers testing captured Allied aircraft. In order to arrive at a reasonable average, one would have to have performance data for dozens, if not hundreds of aircraft of the same type that could be compared with each other. But that is rarely the case. That's why I think that any isolated set of performance data, especially the ones still recorded during the war, are suggestions at best. Besides performance data, I think it is important to also draw on qualitative, if sometimes anecdotal evidence, such as accounts of test pilots, front-line combat pilots and ground crew in order to obtain a more even perspective on the performance of particular aircraft. I don't think that performance data alone can tell the whole story.
Regards,
RB
You wrote: "That is the neat thing about comparing to the real world data. It removes all the 'feelings' and all that is left is the 'facts'." See, that's where I respectfully disagree with you. What exactly is the "real world data"? What are the "facts"? Performance data for aircraft were rarely, if ever recorded only for the purpose of documenting the performance of an aircraft. There are almost always other factors and agendas to be taken into consideration. There is no such thing as "objective," or "un-biased" recoding of data. The desired results will influence the findings. That's why I think that one should not take any set of data at face value, but critically evaluate them. That is why I think that studying performance data can only go so far and should ideally be combined with other avenues of research.
For example, when flying an early-model A6M-Zero in the IL-2 game, I find that the performance of the aircraft in relation to other contemporary planes is very undermodeled in regard to speed. Why do I think that? From reading accounts of Japanese and Allied pilots who flew the Zero, or who fought against it, I am under the impression that the early-model Zeros were not only better armed and more agile, but also considerably faster than the contemporary P-39s, P-40s, and F-4 Wildcats. In contrast, performance data seem to indicate that the early Zeros were actually slower than their American contemporaries. What does this mean? Does it mean that the veterans who flew these planes, or who fought against them, all have inaccurate memory? How were the performance data obtained? As far as I know, the US tested at least one captured Zero during the war and several others after the end of World War II. Let's imagine for a second that the captured Zeros tested by the Allies were actually faster than most contemporary Allied fighters. Would such information have been published or forwarded to the troops? Probably not, because it could have damaged morale considerably. Instead, what was published may well have been an "adjusted" version of the performance data that made Allied aircraft look better by portraying the Zero as slower than it actually was.
I don't know whether this really took place, but the scenario seems pretty likely to me. The same would go for Axis powers testing captured Allied aircraft. In order to arrive at a reasonable average, one would have to have performance data for dozens, if not hundreds of aircraft of the same type that could be compared with each other. But that is rarely the case. That's why I think that any isolated set of performance data, especially the ones still recorded during the war, are suggestions at best. Besides performance data, I think it is important to also draw on qualitative, if sometimes anecdotal evidence, such as accounts of test pilots, front-line combat pilots and ground crew in order to obtain a more even perspective on the performance of particular aircraft. I don't think that performance data alone can tell the whole story.
Regards,
RB