Last edited:
Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
Here's a serious point to consider:
Tests are tests - period.
They take one off the assembly line and put it through it's paces, recording data, listing this and that and it becomes a "pseudo benchmark".
No one took the time to record what the weather was that day, hot and humid? Cold and windy? These can affect stats.
Was the test pilot aggressive like a combat pilot? Was the test pilot familiar with the aircraft enough to know the right settings to get the most out of that particular machine?
Most of the official performance tests were conducted at Wright Field, Dayton Ohio by professional AAF test pilots under a strict testing regime. Weather conditions were recorded and data converted to standard day figures. Main purpose of these tests were to be able to compare test data with other models. Testing was extremely standardized.
Then on to the the real world - how will that stellar crate perform after being shot up and patched a few times?
What's the hours on the engine?
Does it have a new wing or tail cannibalized from a wreck?
Has it had a couple hard landings (which can have an effect on handling)?
Is the climate hot and humid or is it freezing temps - these extremes will have a profound effect on performance.
Are it's wheel wells packed solid with mud?
Does it have a tropical filter on the intake and is it clogged with Coral dust or Saharan sand?
Certainly damaged or worn out planes did not have the same performance as brand new ones.
There are SO many variables and combinations of variables that no two aircraft are going to perform the same out on the front lines and rest assured, they will be nothing like the clean, shiny new test aircraft back home.
Using test data for a particular type is good for having a basic idea of the type's performance perimeter, but one should never assume this is what's going to happen once it gets out to the front line.
Such care in manufacturing, testing and maintenance of all these planes was undertaken to make sure they performed as close to manufactured standards as possible. That's the purpose of assembly line manufacturing.
How many test aircraft flew into combat?Please expand above.
I think we're all done expanding P-39 Expert. It's sort of like a car wreck where your wife starts the car, puts it in gear, looks backwards from the garage, runs through the front wall becasue she wasn't in reverse, runs over the swing set, bounces off a tree, goes through the hedge, and then loses control of the car.
Well, tests don't mean anything and weight doesn't affect climb. Right. I'll stick with my position. You have a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year. I'll buy the first round.How many, indeed.
I think we're all done expanding P-39 Expert. It's sort of like a car wreck where your wife starts the car, puts it in gear, looks backwards from the garage, runs through the front wall becasue she wasn't in reverse, runs over the swing set, bounces off a tree, goes through the hedge, and then loses control of the car.
You've had all the explanations many times over and can't seem to get them from the screen to your fingers when you type.
But, hey, Happy Holidays all the same. Cheers. Perhaps a hot toddie or some really good eggnog will help. Or is that a really good groundhog? Almost anything can be improved by the addition of bacon. Have some. Ham even helps.
I would think that virtually all of them flew into combat. The AAF didn't just discard a plane just because it was used in a test.How many test aircraft flew into combat?