[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"?

Real world data is data that is not simulated data
Facts are something that actually exists; reality; truth, something known to exist or to have happened, a truth known by actual experience or observation; something known to be true.

Performance data for aircraft were rarely, if ever recorded only for the purpose of documenting the performance of an aircraft.

Disagree 100%

There are almost always other factors and agendas to be taken into consideration.

I have never bought into the notion that the ethics of the manufactures were such that they would fake such things. Especially when you consider the fact that the air forces they build the planes re-did each test to ensure the plane could do what the manufacturer said it could do as part of the acceptance testing. So it would be silly to lie knowing that the min they turned the plane over to the air force their lie wold be reviled. The only case I can think of someone doing that is someone who knew the plane would never make it to production, Than they could say just about anything they wanted to say about it in that they knew their lie would never be discovered. As was the case for many German engineers late in the war that were being pressured to come up with some super weapon to save their skins

There is no such thing as "objective," or "un-biased" recording of data. The desired results will influence the findings.

Wrong

The interpretation of the data can be biased, but the data itself is not. Unless you think you can apply pear pressure to an altimeter gauge to make it report incorrect values

That's why I think that one should not take any set of data at face value, but critically evaluate them.

The number 5 is the number 5 no mater how you spin it. Now one might try and interpret the number 5 to be the color blue, but in doing so such a person would expose themselves as biased or a fool

That is why I think that studying performance data can only go so far and should ideally be combined with other avenues of research.

Really?

Now let me get this straight

You admit your experience is such that you don't understand the charts enough to even read them

Yet you feel your experience is such that you can be skeptical of the results

The results that you don't understand how to even read

Is that right?

I have to admit, I find that very strange

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.

That is easy to explain

You yourself admit you don't know how to read the graphs

Based on that there is a good chance you don't know the difference between TAS and IAS

Which is the mistake most people make when commenting on speed

Than there is the test method itself

I can not tell you how many people have sent me track files of their 'tests' claiming this or that only to find the only error in the sim is in the way they did the 'test'

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?

That is why combat reports are useless

The story is one sided

You don't know the state of mind or the sate of the other plane

That is to say for everyone 109 pilot that says he could out turn a Spitfire there is a Spitfire pilot that says he could out turn a 109

Which is why real world data collected under controlled test conditions is the only way to fly

Pun intended

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 have never bought into the notion that the ethics of these test pilots was such that they would be charged with testing an airplane to find it's weakness for their pilots to take advantage of only to lie about the result. In that they knew what they said was going to be used by pilots in the field and thus their pilots in the fields life depended on them being truthful.

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.

That is your 'feeling' and your welcome to it

I just don't agree with it

Which is not to say or imply that I think every detail of the higher brass on the enemy strengths and weaknesses in all aspects of war was passed down to every private in the field.

All I know is what I have read, and from that I have yet to see where some weakness let alone strengths of the enemy aircraft was withheld from the pilots. In that it would just be silly. Take the Thach Weave, based on knowing the zero could out turn the F4F they developed tactics to deal with that 'strength' of the zero. That is just one example of why such info should not be held back

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.

Combat reports are neat in that they tell you about the pilot and his tactics, but they tell you very little about a match between two planes. As noted above it is a one sided story, you don't know if the other plane had engine troubles or if the pilot even knew he was being chanced when the guy chasing him said he caught up to him. Do you really want a flight model based on one sided story that don't contain enough information to even begin to reproduce the test in the game to see if you get the same results?