I think the original argument was over their aircrafts' performance any way, why use combat results effected by thousands of factors(Hurricanes lost) when theres quite detailed technical specifications available (where Hurricane also loses) and pilot memoirs("Hurricanes were slow, leaked oil and flew like if they had rubber bands between the stick and the control surfaces and had no canopy ejection mechanism")
1. The performance specifications we have available are usually theoretical ones based on how the manufacturer stated the aircraft performed under test, and often have as much resemblance to production aircraft under combat conditions as horseshit does to peanut butter.
The test conditions are often known. Test results may not be 100% comparable but it doesnt mean they couldnt be compared at all. In WW2 aircraft it wasnt unusual to have up to 5% performance difference between brand new out of the factory plane examples and it only grew from there when the planes got flight hours, which is something that also needs to be taken into account.
But if a plane has something like 50 km/h speed advantage at most altitudes like Bf 109 over the Hurricane I, then thats something that cant be just handwaved away.
2. Even when they are accurate, they don't tell the whole story. Many aircraft had fairly mediocre "paper" stats, but were so reliable and easy to maintain that they could fly at their full performance under almost any conditions, while others look extremely impressive on paper, but were so hard to fly that only the best pilots could come anywhere close to reaching the potential (a notorious offender is the FW 190 - most pilots preferred the easier-to-handle Bf. 109 even though the 190 was theoretically a better plane in most respects.) Not to mention that none of the technical specifications will tell you that the Zero fell out of the sky if you looked at it hard enough or that the Betty bomber went up like a torch at the slightest excuse.
"Wet wing" planes like the G3M and G4M have always burned nicely. Though its not the fuel really but rather fuel gases within the tank meeting sparks from the frame/skin aluminum when its struck by bullets. Or incendiary rounds.
Any way... source? Flying a plane in general isnt the same thing as flying a plane in combat... And
most of the pilots who flew both Bf 109 and the Fw 190 extensively preferred the Fw 190. It was the Fw 190 that was easier to handle, was more automated(electric, push-of-a-button flaps, trims, gear) and had the wide landing gear which helped a lot in the East especially, and less experienced ones at takeoff and landing. Center of weight more ahead so it didnt want to turn to the left at takeoff as much too. Usually the only things pilots moving from 109 to the 190 disliked were the tendency to snap stall in a high G turn to the right(more experienced pilots loved it, though) and the way the radial BMW engine blocked sight more than 109's inline DB when taxing and at takeoff.
Which is why this was often done:
The ONLY way to determine the relative quality of any two designs is to see how it performed with pilots of roughly equal skill under equal conditions.
No it isnt. For determining how large the performance difference exactly is, perhaps, but mock up fights aren't really needed to determine that Bf 109 was superior to, say, Hurricane or F6F/F4U to Zero.
Author
Topic: Defend ze glory of ze German Wunderwaffen! (Read 16928 times)