Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
And why not? What possible incentive would the Allies have in being wrong?
Given that their pilots lives depended on this information, they would do their best to make them as good as possible in fact.
In fact if they understated German performance figures they would very quickly get feedback from their own pilots that this was not true, probably very forceful feedback (along the lines of "you told us that X does Y mph, but I was at Z mph and it caught up with me, you stupid prat").
Quite possibly in the very early days they would have had issues with correct maintenance and procedures, therefore not getting the best out of any captured plane.
But by later in the war they would have gotten that worked out pretty well.
For example, Rolls Royce had stripped down Jumo 211s totally and tested them on their own testbeds to measure their performance.
Plus by '42 the British had worked out the Luftwaffe's order of battle pretty well. RV Jones famously stated that he could give a month's warning of any new Luftwaffe bombing campaign and then proved it, hence their terrible losses in Operation Steinbock (he also predicted to the day when V1s would be launched at Britain).
The Germans Knew about the Mustang long before it appeared and had a very good idea of its performance, ditto the Allies with the introduction of the 190D.
So I just can't see how they could be dramatically out. This also applies to the Germans, by later in the war both sides had a pretty good idea of what they were up against.
a lot of the stuff tested was new or practically new. like the Do335 i made reference to....and the one that crashed and killed the pilot due to a fire in the rear engine. i had come right from the factory. there were enough brand new ac laying around that they didnt need to piece togther shot up ac or wrecks. that happened early in the war but not afterwards.
Only the G-6/U2 that landed by mistake in Britain was in relative good condition, everything else tested had serious problems that needed to be addressed, including the British tested G-6/U2 (which btw had the two MG151/20 gunpods, being a U2 it never had the GM-1) that was torn apart and put back together.a lot of the stuff tested was new or practically new.
Only the G-6/U2 that landed by mistake in Britain was in relative good condition, everything else tested had serious problems that needed to be addressed, including the British tested G-6/U2 (which btw had the two MG151/20 gunpods, being a U2 it never had the GM-1) that was torn apart and put back together.
I respect Eric Brown's opinions, at the same time I disagree with some of his conclusions.
As far as this incident straight from the factory - not surprising considering the quality of the production work force at the end of the war.
I respect Eric Brown's opinions, at the same time I disagree with some of his conclusions.
It always makes me cringe when I see this kind of thing written, for example, here's a bloke who served as a test pilot and having flown in combat from aircraft carriers and shot down enemy aircraft, who flew almost every captured enemy aircraft post war and who is in the Guinness Book of Records for flying more types of aeroplane than any other individual, yet his opinion is somewhat biased and tainted by his Britishness.
Altsym, don't take this personally, but what qualifications or experience do you have to quantify your disagreement with him? I'm not saying we should naturally accept everything he states, as he has made some about faces in his printed recollections, but I find it hard to accept that so many here should write him off as biased because they don't agree with them. What makes you qualified enough to do so compared with his experience?[/QUOTE
When Mr Brown rated the Fairy Swordfish as a better torpedo plane than the Grumman Avenger, it tends to make some of us question his judgement even if we have 0 experience flying airplanes.
I never take anything the wrong way, friend. pinsog made a good example.. Stringbag superior to the Avenger? Come on now. As far as my qualifications, hmmm, well....Altsym, don't take this personally, but what qualifications or experience do you have to quantify your disagreement with him? I'm not saying we should naturally accept everything he states, as he has made some about faces in his printed recollections, but I find it hard to accept that so many here should write him off as biased because they don't agree with them. What makes you qualified enough to do so compared with his experience?
When Mr Brown rated the Fairy Swordfish as a better torpedo plane than the Grumman Avenger, it tends to make some of us question his judgement even if we have 0 experience flying airplanes.
When Mr Brown rated the Fairy Swordfish as a better torpedo plane than the Grumman Avenger, it tends to make some of us question his judgement even if we have 0 experience flying airplanes.
so does any other pusher/ tractor configuration, right up to the cessna 337Do335s had a problem with overheating of the rear engine.
Context is everything in this sort of thing, so you have to look at the factors considered in the evaluation.
Like takeoff in bad weather, landing in bad weather, abilities on small escort carriers, being able to handle operating in bad weather, etc, etc, etc. In that case you could see why the Swordfish would be better for (say) British small carrier operations in the Atlantic rather than the Avenger, despite the latter's higher speed and so on.
Einstein knew ALOT about outer space, but had he ever been there?
he does have a small bias towards British aircraft, which is totally understandable
I doubt very much that he (and others.. like Mark Hanna) took the 109 to its limits like in wartime scenarios (for safety reasons).
Must admit I have never come across that, but taking iit as a fact then you have to look at his rational for that.
Remember he was a Naval test pilot and what he would be evaluating on the suitability for the Royal Navy in its own operations. And there would be a multiplicity of factors that would affect his overall evaluation.
Like takeoff in bad weather, landing in bad weather, abilities on small escort carriers, being able to handle operating in bad weather, etc, etc, etc.
In that case you could see why the Swordfish would be better for (say) British small carrier operations in the Atlantic rather than the Avenger, despite the latter's higher speed and so on.
Context is everything in this sort of thing, so you have to look at the factors considered in the evaluation.