[ACE-OF-ACES]

There is also a tactical evaluation of a 109G-6 and a spit IX using 18lbs and 25lbs boost. In this evaluation the 109 has under wing gondolas, so how do you decipher a conclusion made under these conditions on 109s that didn't have gondolas.

"Conclusion
22. The Me.109G has an inferior performance to the Spitfire in all respects with the exception of acceleration in a dive and the slight advantage in speed which it possesses at heights between 16,000 and 20,000 feet. "

There is probably more information to suggest otherwise, or reinforce these results, this was just looking at one website.

I've seen habits of researchers that will tend to point toward information that reinforces their conclusions rather than searching for information that opposes it. An accurate conclusion can't be made with out searching for opposing information. It actually would save more time to start with opposing views than to continue to add to the lumps of information that reinforce whats already been shown. If opposing views can't be supported, then they can be ignored. I just get tired of seeing conclusions that don't even address the opposing views, when they should be in the habit of addressing those things when it comes to making conclusions.

Here is a perfect example of why 'performance test data' should trump any 'combat report' or in this case a 'tactical comparison' report.

Unless the aircraft are instrument with calibrated recording devices for things like speed, rate of climb, altitude, etc all you will have in the end is the un-calibrated pilot jargon

On that note chances are you will never find a combat report from WWII that consisted of the aircraft being instrumented, unless a plane under test got jumped by the enemy during a test flight, but I have seen some tactical comparisons where the planes were instrumented

But as far as I can tell the test bill is referring to above, i.e

http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/ ... tical.html

Was not

Tactical comparisons come in two main flavors

1) One pilot flys both planes and than gives you his opinion of the differences based off his memory of the flight
2) Two pilots fly one in each plane side by side and give you their opinions of the relative differences based off their memories of the flight

Now you may be thinking what does he mean by 'based off their memories of the flight'

I am not trying to say their memories were so bad that they could not recall them post flight and write about them

I am simply pointing out there is a lot of variables at a lot of different altitudes to remember

Combine that with the fact that humans make terrible recording devices and you have a lot of room for error

Much more than if the plane was instrumented

Instrumented tests record the variables during flight and free up the pilot to focus on the flying an flying qualities

As you read the 'tactical comparison' sections of the report note the lack of or limited reference to any hard data values

In it's place you will find statements like..

'approximately' or
'about' or
'is superior to' or
'more pronounced' or
'has a particularly marked advantage' or
'almost identical' or
'slowly pulls away' or
'leave the Spitfire without any difficulty' or
'greatly superior to' or
'inferior performance'
'slight advantage' or
'very pronounced advantage' or
'no difficulty in out-turning' or
'will pull away from '

Why is that?

Because the plane was not instrumented and therefore we are left with the pilot jargon

And pilot jargon is very hard to nail down

Ask yourself..

How much better is a climb rate, feet per min wise, when it is said to 'have a particularly marked advantage'

Is that 10fpm? 100fpm? 1000fpm?

We don't know

And chances are we never will know because the only way to know is to talk to that pilot to try and calibrate his pilot jargon

That is to say one mans trash is another mans treasure

Or put another way one mans fast is another mans slow

For example if you ask a house wife who got passed by some nut on the free way how fast he was going when he passed you

She might say "OH MY GOD THAT GUY WENT PASSED ME LIKE I WAS SITTING STILL"

Now to a house wife use to driving at 65mph on the freeway getting passed by someone going 75mph may seem like she was sitting still

But now replace that house wife with say a NASCAR driver who got passed by the same nut on the freeway how fast he was going when he passed him

And he might say "ENH.. NOT THAT FAST REALLY"

See without hard numbers the statement now becomes relative to the person saying it

And if you don't take the time to calibrate the house wife or NASCAR drives definition of fast

The statement becomes pretty much worthless

Cept to know that someone passed someone

How fast we don't know

And never will