Gold-Clash

evangilder · May 17, 2005

But that's just it. Yes, it may show some performance, but only at the hands of the guy behind the stick. If he's good, you might get a glimpse of some good manuevering that the plane is capable of. But I have seen clips from both sides and neither side's clips have proven anything to me other than I need to have respect for the guys who flew those planes. That is regardless of who they flew for.

FLYBOYJ · May 17, 2005

Now one thing I think gun camera clips show well is armament effectivness

DAVIDICUS · May 17, 2005

Why watch movies in an attempt to discern whether one high performance fighter or another has superior performance abilities. There's little value in studying such film footage. (Unless you're Udet and watching said films for hours on end keeps you from going through your mom's Crisco jar in two days flat.)

How do you know if either pursuer or prey are suffering from battle damage or machanical defects?

How do you control for relative pilot skill?

Does the attacker have one or more jammed guns?

We've all seen hours of these films and the wide variability in apparent performance of both attacker and attackee, even in reverse rolls with the same plane, renders any conclusions unreliable.

lesofprimus · May 17, 2005

From Udet....
"True blue Les, but with that in mind, I don't think a series of gun camera footage is really going to show you accurate aircraft performance comparisons, it may give you a good idea, or as you pointed out, if a pilot is asleep at the wheel, or in our case, the stick."

From David....

Why watch movies in an attempt to discern whether one high performance fighter or another has superior performance abilities. There's little value in studying such film footage. (Unless you're Udet and watching said films for hours on end keeps you from going through your mom's Crisco jar in two days flat.)

I think u need to stop with the personal attacks... I did not see anywhere that Udet was insulting u in such a manner.... Ur argument is pointless against him, or did u not read his post........

And I agree Udet. It is a good way to view a fighters ability to withstand an onslaught of lead, or the lack thereof.....

DerAdlerIstGelandet · May 17, 2005

That is about the only thing tha footage will show you. You can discern anything about the aircraft because you do not have eneogh info. You do not know the experience of the pilot, you do knot know how the pilot is feeling (it may not be his day, he may be sick, he may not have had any sleep, he may have gotten Dear John letter). I really do not understand people that want to present gun cam footage as evidence to how good an aircraft was. "I have seen many footage of P-51's being chewed up by Me-109G's" Or "I have seen many footage of a Me-109 getting chewed up by a P-51D"! It does not prove anything.

DAVIDICUS · May 17, 2005

Lesofprimus, you quoted Udet as saying, "True blue Les, but with that in mind, I don't think a series of gun camera footage is really going to show you accurate aircraft performance comparisons, it may give you a good idea, or as you pointed out, if a pilot is asleep at the wheel, or in our case, the stick."

That was FLYBOY's post and not Udet's. Your point is, well, pointless, or did u not read his last post below ....

If you happen to watch a reasonable long film from the guncamera, i´d bet anything guncamera footage can provide with relevant data on the performance of the planes involved.

If you watch a mere 10 second long film commencing at the very right moment when the enemy plane is getting hit, i give you the point it told nothing beyond showing the end of a plane.

A different tale comes when you can have a 1 minute long -or even more- film from the same action

If you can have a reasonably longer view of the enemy plane being pursued and watch it attempting evasive action -turning, diving, climbing- it is an entirely different case. Furthermore, even if after attempting evasive action the film goes on until showing you the pilot bringing his guns to bear and hit the mark you´ve nearly got the whole thing.

It is upon such film cases that i base my comments on the performance of aircraft..

lesofprimus · May 17, 2005

I made a mistake dammit. Gggrrrr....... Early in the morning and didnt have my coffee yet.....

U are correct and Udet is.... Well... Udet I suppose... Everyone has their own opinion, and if he feels he can gleen the info needed from Gun Camera Footage, so be it....

And my post, irrelevant as it was, was not pointless.... U should not have the need to attack him like that....

If ur trying to mimick me, then u did a pretty damn good job....

DerAdlerIstGelandet · May 17, 2005

I dont see how gun camara footage can show how an aircraft really is.

lesofprimus · May 17, 2005

It really doesnt, but thats MY opinion, as it is urs and Davids.....

Udet has his as well.......

Erich · May 17, 2005

sorry gents but gun cam footage is useless in determining which is best the P-51D or Bf 109G-10. If given sufficient height and equal quality of the two opposing pilots then it will be a draw. By the way some G-10's were fitted with the MG 151/20 through the nose mount plus being unarmored for some pilots to give a slight speed edge although the G-10 was the fastest variant of the G series flown.

think about gun camera footage for a sec. what and why was it shown to younger pilots ? to see where the best spots for landing rounds and the weakest qualities on the enemies a/c to bring down the a/c with the least amount of ammo.....

ok 2 centos'

lesofprimus · May 17, 2005

And 100% correct I might add....

BUT...... Some people look for certain things in making their judgements on certain things, and Udet is a some people I suppose......

FLYBOYJ · May 17, 2005

Erich said:
think about gun camera footage for a sec. what and why was it shown to younger pilots ? to see where the best spots for landing rounds and the weakest qualities on the enemies a/c to bring down the a/c with the least amount of ammo.....

ok 2 centos'

See my post several back! 8)

DerAdlerIstGelandet · May 17, 2005

The problem is I think he downloads lets say 10 clips of a P-51 getting shot down and calls that reason for comparison. Well there are 10 clips of the 109 getting shot down too. (numbers are just figurative here for both of them ) Footage does not prove anything.

FLYBOYJ · May 17, 2005

You got to admit, everyone loves watching gun camera footage. Personally I like Korean War clips. There something about seeing a Mig getting blasted that, well, I don't know, gets me excited!

DerAdlerIstGelandet · May 17, 2005

I do love looking at WW2 clips. I just dont base anything off of them, except that "That damn that guy is having a bad day!"

Soren · May 17, 2005

Erich said:
sorry gents but gun cam footage is useless in determining which is best the P-51D or Bf 109G-10. If given sufficient height and equal quality of the two opposing pilots then it will be a draw. By the way some G-10's were fitted with the MG 151/20 through the nose mount plus being unarmored for some pilots to give a slight speed edge although the G-10 was the fastest variant of the G series flown.

think about gun camera footage for a sec. what and why was it shown to younger pilots ? to see where the best spots for landing rounds and the weakest qualities on the enemies a/c to bring down the a/c with the least amount of ammo.....

ok 2 centos'

If both pilots know their plane to the highest degree, it might very well be a draw !

The only thing I would add as advice to the P-51 pilot would be: "Don't get low with the G-10 !" and "Maintain height !"

DerAdlerIstGelandet · May 17, 2005

Experience played a big part in it.

Erich · May 17, 2005

do not believe that the G-10 had that good low altitude performance as one might think. The a/c was originally designed to take on the 30,000 feet plus of the Mustang while the Fw 190A and even Doras were to fly at medium height while the upper G-10 eschelons to take on advanceing/pouncung Allied escort fighters. the G-10 was the ultimate single engine nf of the war tackling Mossies until the Me 262 single seater became available but never in enough number at tnight to make a difference except a pin prick and keep RAF Mossie and RAF bomber crews on their toes

DerAdlerIstGelandet · May 17, 2005

How Night fighter units were fitted with the G-10?

Soren · May 17, 2005

Erich said:
do not believe that the G-10 had that good low altitude performance as one might think. The a/c was originally designed to take on the 30,000 feet plus of the Mustang while the Fw 190A and even Doras were to fly at medium height while the upper G-10 eschelons to take on advanceing/pouncung Allied escort fighters. the G-10 was the ultimate single engine nf of the war tackling Mossies until the Me 262 single seater became available but never in enough number at tnight to make a difference except a pin prick and keep RAF Mossie and RAF bomber crews on their toes

At sea level, in level flight, the G10 could do 575 km/h and the P-51D 578km/h. If they both started combat maneuvering the P-51 was very quickly in deep trouble at that altitude, and if the P-51 starts climbing or turning at that altitude it is litterally dead meat !

At sea level the G-10 will climb at over 4,600 ft/min

Gold-Clash

"Shooter"

"THE GREAT GAZOO"

Staff Sergeant

Brigadier General

Private Chemtrail Disperser

Staff Sergeant

Brigadier General

Private Chemtrail Disperser

Brigadier General

the old Sage

Brigadier General

"THE GREAT GAZOO"

Private Chemtrail Disperser

"THE GREAT GAZOO"

Private Chemtrail Disperser

1st Lieutenant

Private Chemtrail Disperser

the old Sage

Private Chemtrail Disperser

1st Lieutenant

Users who are viewing this thread

Similar threads