20.04.2010, 21:48
Ace, that was the tactical trial i was referring to and while i can appreciate your analogy and your point is well received, i respectfully disagree.
Tactical trials aren't like cars passing each other on the freeway, rather, a drag race, either from a stand still or a specified speed and they are conducted by professionals not dim witted pilots.
They took two planes and set them at the same altitudes and same speeds, then said "climb" and made observations on the behavior.
These descriptions are not vague as to be interpreted a variety of ways.
There are limitations:
One being exact speeds are not known which is why a baseline aircraft is used to make comparisons. In this case it was the 109.
"How do all our fighters compare to this aircraft?"
In this sense, calibration is not necessary, especially since instrument error is likely to show two different air speeds despite every plane flying at the exact same true air speeds.
"what are you talking about, i was driving at 65mph" says the man who passed the house wife.
"So was I" says the Nascar driver.
"No you weren't." argues the house wife.
I have a bigger problem with such trials because sometimes enemy aircraft are in barely serviceable condition and the results may not reflect a true combat ready aircraft. In this report it even says the trials could not be completed because the plane was unserviceable and it eventually crashed.
I have an easier time getting around pilot jargon especially in a controlled enviornment. why?
"The simplest explanation is usually the correct one."
There is no need to attach ambiguities or definitions outside of what has been presented. With that said, you couldn't rely on the jargon alone, and depending on the aircraft being tested or compared it could act as a 'checks and balances' against hard data. This particular trial has a couple holes to be considered for that purpose, namely the questionable condition of the aircraft, and the fact it had under wing gondolas. You still have nothing to conclude on this report alone, and it has less to do with the jargon and more to do with the aircraft condition.
Bill
Tactical trials aren't like cars passing each other on the freeway, rather, a drag race, either from a stand still or a specified speed and they are conducted by professionals not dim witted pilots.
They took two planes and set them at the same altitudes and same speeds, then said "climb" and made observations on the behavior.
These descriptions are not vague as to be interpreted a variety of ways.
There are limitations:
One being exact speeds are not known which is why a baseline aircraft is used to make comparisons. In this case it was the 109.
"How do all our fighters compare to this aircraft?"
In this sense, calibration is not necessary, especially since instrument error is likely to show two different air speeds despite every plane flying at the exact same true air speeds.
"what are you talking about, i was driving at 65mph" says the man who passed the house wife.
"So was I" says the Nascar driver.
"No you weren't." argues the house wife.
I have a bigger problem with such trials because sometimes enemy aircraft are in barely serviceable condition and the results may not reflect a true combat ready aircraft. In this report it even says the trials could not be completed because the plane was unserviceable and it eventually crashed.
I have an easier time getting around pilot jargon especially in a controlled enviornment. why?
"The simplest explanation is usually the correct one."
There is no need to attach ambiguities or definitions outside of what has been presented. With that said, you couldn't rely on the jargon alone, and depending on the aircraft being tested or compared it could act as a 'checks and balances' against hard data. This particular trial has a couple holes to be considered for that purpose, namely the questionable condition of the aircraft, and the fact it had under wing gondolas. You still have nothing to conclude on this report alone, and it has less to do with the jargon and more to do with the aircraft condition.
Bill