6./ZG26_Gielow Posted February 28, 2015 Posted February 28, 2015 I use elevator trim all the time diving, climbing or turning. The 190 is a beast!! I would like to have time to find out the best values for every situation or maybe buy a Saitek trimm wheel
303_Kwiatek Posted February 28, 2015 Posted February 28, 2015 I think some aces should create own forum where could feed own ego casue here just doing unnesesery trash 2
Rama Posted February 28, 2015 Posted February 28, 2015 Why are you mods allowing so much clutter in this thread? Why are you mods sitting by and allowing the forums to become toxic by allowing insults and even engaging in them yourselves? Do your jobs or step aside. For this kind of claims, you can: 1) either report a post by clicking on the "report" button in the bottom right of the post 2) send a PM to Bearcat 3) send a PM to Zak if you want to complain about a moderator. For your information, moderators can participate to discussions like everybody else. And it's not IMO a good thing for a moderator to moderate discussions in which he participate. 4
reve_etrange Posted February 28, 2015 Posted February 28, 2015 Your error is to think that "historical analysis" without numerical data is of any help to allow you to "know" (or just to understand) the performances of a plane What about historical / anecdotal information such as US Navy instructions to avoid turnfighting Zeros? I do think that something can be learned about relative plane performance in comparing cases where such instructions were and were not issued (though of course in this specific case I believe there are recorded turn times). At least, they have more weight than comments of individual pilots. And by pick one I mean take some aspect of the flight model that you think qualitative data can be used to validate the FM.. I think there is a class of aspects where this can be done - though not for e.g. climb rate, turn time, etc. which are most discussed. For example, Bf-109 pilots stated that the stabilizer adjustment was used frequently while maneuvering. If stabilizer adjustment were not required to turn tightly with the BOS 109, I would consider that a problem with the FM given the mentioned accounts. In fact, discovering the necessity of stabilizer adjustment in BOS made me wonder, and led to a search for pilot comments about the stabilizer (which more or less corroborate the BOS behavior). I use elevator trim all the time diving, climbing or turning. The 190 is a beast!! I would like to have time to find out the best values for every situation or maybe buy a Saitek trimm wheel I don't think you can use a wheel with the 190 stabilizer at all. IRL the FW-190 had buttons, not a wheel like the Bf-109, and BOS models this control style restriction on most control bindings. (I think there are some exceptions - LaGG-3 trim wheel?).
Rama Posted February 28, 2015 Posted February 28, 2015 What about historical / anecdotal information such as US Navy instructions to avoid turnfighting Zeros? I do think that something can be learned .../... You could maybe (not surrelly, many other aspects should be examined if you have only this anecdotal evidence) make the hypothesis that the turn radius and corner speed of the A6M could be better thant thos of the Wildcat. BUT: that's something you know with quite a good confidence because you have quantitative data to tell it. So what have you learned? AND: If you had no quantitative data, how would you use this hypothesis to tune the relative turn radius and corner speed of the aircrafts?.... Tell me, I would learn something if you find a procedure to do it. You could also ask yourself and try to find the reason of the US Navy instruction.... do you think that, along the pilot reports, they had no analysed quantitative data before to write the instruction? For example, Bf-109 pilots stated that the stabilizer adjustment was used frequently while maneuvering. If stabilizer adjustment were not required to turn tightly with the BOS 109, I would consider that a problem with the FM given the mentioned accounts. In fact, discovering the necessity of stabilizer adjustment in BOS made me wonder, and led to a search for pilot comments about the stabilizer (which more or less corroborate the BOS behavior). Well.... this is a good example of faulty logic. A stabilizer adjustment used (more or less frequently) while maneuvering by some pilots does not imply, in no way, that a stabilizer adjustment is mandatory in order to turn tightly. It only lead you to build an hypothesis, no more. So it will not tell you if BoS FM is correct or not on this point. And I'm a bit skeptic anyway about this anyway. I had once my ass in a Bf109 G6 (static, on ground), and I really have hard time figuring that trying to turn a little bit the stabilizer wheel with the left hand (it's not easy) while pulling the stick with the right hand is more efficient thant pulling the stick with both hands.... ... but of course, This is just a personal feeling, and I will not pretend to use it as an argument in a FM discussion (and please don't discuss it, I accept to be wrong on this point if you think I am).
GOAT-ACEOFACES Posted February 28, 2015 Posted February 28, 2015 I think there is a class of aspects where this can be done - though not for e.g. climb rate, turn time, etc. which are most discussed. Agreed 100% For example, Bf-109 pilots stated that the stabilizer adjustment was used frequently while maneuvering.I have been saying for a long time, qualitative data, like this pilot account your provided are useful for flying qualities.. Stuff like it makes this sound when I do that, the stick flet like it was in cement, the plane has a high frequency buzz shake just before the stall.. If stabilizer adjustment were not required to turn tightly with the BOS 109, I would consider that a problem with the FM given the mentioned accounts.I agree, if applying the stabilizer had no effect on the turn radius.. And we know for a fact that it should.. Than one could conclude there is a problem with either the FM or the model of how the stabilizer is applied.. But it is noteworthy to point out here, this says nothing about the turn radius and what it should be with and without the stabilizer applied. Which goes back to what you and I already agreed upon, qualitative is useless for making or validating the FM with regards to turn radius in this case. It is also noteworthy to point out this qualitative example you provided is specific to the planes flying qualities, which as noted I already acknowledged.. The real problem with qualitative data is when people try to apply it retaliative to another plane, as in plane vs plane results. Which I have already gave examples of.
reve_etrange Posted February 28, 2015 Posted February 28, 2015 Stuff like it makes this sound when I do that, the stick flet like it was in cement, the plane has a high frequency buzz shake just before the stall.. Yeah, it's sort of the qualitative information a test pilot would pass on to the designers, though even pre-WWII they did add as much actual instrumentation as possible. As you have pointed out many times, every one of these discussions would be a lot easier if there was good instrumentation built into the game. But it is noteworthy to point out here, this says nothing about the turn radius and what it should be with and without the stabilizer applied. Agreed. Personally, I think I would rather have a physical effect be imperfectly modeled than not at all. Control stiffening is a good example - it's really hard to know how much stiffening a particular plane should have, but they should probably all have some stiffening curve at high speeds - right? A stabilizer adjustment used (more or less frequently) while maneuvering by some pilots does not imply, in no way, that a stabilizer adjustment is mandatory in order to turn tightly. It only lead you to build an hypothesis, no more. So it will not tell you if BoS FM is correct or not on this point. And I'm a bit skeptic anyway about this anyway. I had once my ass in a Bf109 G6 (static, on ground), and I really have hard time figuring that trying to turn a little bit the stabilizer wheel with the left hand (it's not easy) while pulling the stick with the right hand is more efficient thant pulling the stick with both hands I think the key is that a given amount of elevator deflection is less effective than a given amount of stabilizer adjustment, since it's the whole tailplane and both trailing and leading edges changing - so, like you said, the real effect isn't really apparent on the ground. I have also read that Hurricane pilots were warned not to use the trim wheel at high speeds, because it could separate the tail, and that some pilots were able to recover from dives where the stick was "frozen" by carefully using the trim. I think any mechanism that's able to bypass the limitations of an unassisted elevator - like the trim tabs or adjustable stabilizer - is going to be more effective per unit of pilot effort, especially at high speeds.
reve_etrange Posted February 28, 2015 Posted February 28, 2015 Why wont this thread die?! I suspect it's because some of the participants are interested in the extended historical and engineering problem that is World War II flight simulation. 1
GOAT-ACEOFACES Posted February 28, 2015 Posted February 28, 2015 Agreed. Personally, I think I would rather have a physical effect be imperfectly modeled than not at all. Control stiffening is a good example - it's really hard to know how much stiffening a particular plane should have, but they should probably all have some stiffening curve at high speeds - right?Agreed 100% And that happens all the time, with regards to flying qualities in flight sims! Which adds to the immersion of the sim, or sometimes it is done to simply fill in the blanks, feeback wise knowing we have no seat-of-the-pants feel, therefore sim makers try to make up for that by adding sounds and visual effects. All of which is qualitative! And I am all for it! I suspect it's because some of the participants are interested in the extended historical and engineering problem that is World War II flight simulation.Bingo! As long as people are exchanging ideas in a thread in a decent manor, who cares how long the thread lives!
Crump Posted February 28, 2015 Posted February 28, 2015 it's really hard to know how much stiffening a particular plane should have, but they should probably all have some stiffening curve at high speeds - right? It is not hard to know how much "stiffening" any particular design should have at any speed. It is function of the design just like its ability to climb, turn, and level speed.
Crump Posted February 28, 2015 Posted February 28, 2015 If stabilizer adjustment were not required to turn tightly with the BOS 109, I would consider that a problem with the FM given the mentioned accounts. It just does not work that way. All you are doing is telling the airplane to stay as a specific speed when you adjust the trim system. To the pilot, the trim is about control forces. A movable stabilizer trim system has no effect on how the aircraft turns. It will effect an uninformed pilots perception as the forces change and when the airplane is trimmed, he requires no force on the stick to maintain that trim speed in a turn or in level flight.
GOAT-ACEOFACES Posted February 28, 2015 Posted February 28, 2015 It just does not work that way. All you are doing is telling the airplane to stay as a specific speed when you adjust the trim system. To the pilot, the trim is about control forces. A movable stabilizer trim system has no effect on how the aircraft turns. It will effect an uninformed pilots perception as the forces change and when the airplane is trimmed, he requires no force on the stick to maintain that trim speed in a turn or in level flight. Just to be crystal clear Crump You made a mistake in your quote, I didn't say that! Hope that helps
Crump Posted February 28, 2015 Posted February 28, 2015 Just to be crystal clear Crump Just to be crystal clear, I don't care. I agree, if applying the stabilizer had no effect on the turn radius.. And we know for a fact that it should.. Than one could conclude there is a problem with either the FM or the model of how the stabilizer is applied.. You said this which is equally wrong and the same point I made.
Rama Posted February 28, 2015 Posted February 28, 2015 I think any mechanism that's able to bypass the limitations of an unassisted elevator - like the trim tabs or adjustable stabilizer - is going to be more effective per unit of pilot effort, especially at high speeds. Of course.
BraveSirRobin Posted February 28, 2015 Posted February 28, 2015 If you would read these topic If you would try reading for context you'd realize that my comments had nothing to do with that. If you have test results that don't match real world test data, report it. My post had absolutely nothing to do with that.
GOAT-ACEOFACES Posted February 28, 2015 Posted February 28, 2015 Just to be crystal clear, I don't care. Well we all already knew you don't care about correctness.. That is clear from most if not all of your posts! You said this which is equally wrong and the same point I made. So let me see if I understand you correctly.. When I said "IF" applying the stabilizer had no effect on the turn radius.. You read that and thought I said applying the stabilizer had no effect on the turn radius.. And based on that you saying I was wrong? Interesting! You do have a way with words.. All bad! Remember what I told you Crump.. Read more than once before hitting the reply button! 1
Crump Posted February 28, 2015 Posted February 28, 2015 I agree, if applying the stabilizer had no effect on the turn radius.. And we know for a fact that it should..
GOAT-ACEOFACES Posted February 28, 2015 Posted February 28, 2015 So tell me Crump What part of 'if' in the sentence are you still struggling with?
SKG51_robtek Posted February 28, 2015 Posted February 28, 2015 (edited) AoA when you say that the elevator trim has a influence on the turn radius, as you did, then that is wrong, as crump pointed out. The trim only reduces control forces. Edited February 28, 2015 by I./ZG15_robtek
Wulf Posted February 28, 2015 Author Posted February 28, 2015 Because members of the local 'Fifth Column' (a number of whom appear to be disgruntled remnants from former Soviet client-states) insist on turning what was intended as an information thread, for enthusiasts, into trench warfare. I see some of these guys online from time to time. I've never once seen any one of them actually in a 190. I know; it's beyond weird.
GOAT-ACEOFACES Posted February 28, 2015 Posted February 28, 2015 AoA when you say that the elevator trim has a influence on the turn radius, as you did, then that is wrong, as crump pointed out. The trim only reduces control forces. Ah, I see where you and crump are confused.. Note I was replying back to reve_etrange post where he stated the stabilizer has an effect on turns.. As his example of how qualitative data can be used to identify a flight model error. I simply took his example and said "IF" that is the case "AND" we know it to be true "THEN" you are right.. Which should not be confused with.. As you and Crump have done here.. With me saying stabilizer can or can not have an effect on turns.. Hope that helps!
SKG51_robtek Posted February 28, 2015 Posted February 28, 2015 (edited) Discussion-problems often arise from semantic misunderstandings. Being less condescending would also help (i.e. hope that helps) It would also help if it wouldn't descent to the personal level, but staying objective and problem/discussion oriented. Edited February 28, 2015 by I./ZG15_robtek
GOAT-ACEOFACES Posted February 28, 2015 Posted February 28, 2015 (edited) Well robtek I think it is safe to say that you are the confused one here, in light of the fact that you quoted me in your last post as saying, i.e. AoA when you say that the elevator trim has a influence on the turn radius, as you did Thing is, I never said the elevator trim has an influence on the turn radius! Mater of fact I made no references to elevator trim what so ever.. So clearly you have me confused with someone else! Just as a word of advice.. In the future, if your going to accuse someone of saying something, it is better to quote what they said as opposed to you trying to summarize what they said. That simple rule will help you from making silly mistakes like this in the future! Hope that helps! Edited February 28, 2015 by ACEOFACES
SKG51_robtek Posted February 28, 2015 Posted February 28, 2015 Agreed 100% I have been saying for a long time, qualitative data, like this pilot account your provided are useful for flying qualities.. Stuff like it makes this sound when I do that, the stick flet like it was in cement, the plane has a high frequency buzz shake just before the stall.. I agree, if applying the stabilizer had no effect on the turn radius.. And we know for a fact that it should.. Than one could conclude there is a problem with either the FM or the model of how the stabilizer is applied.. But it is noteworthy to point out here, this says nothing about the turn radius and what it should be with and without the stabilizer applied. Which goes back to what you and I already agreed upon, qualitative is useless for making or validating the FM with regards to turn radius in this case. It is also noteworthy to point out this qualitative example you provided is specific to the planes flying qualities, which as noted I already acknowledged.. The real problem with qualitative data is when people try to apply it retaliative to another plane, as in plane vs plane results. Which I have already gave examples of. AoA, again you are pulling it to a personal level. I really know now that you are the confused here. No problem, i highlighted the sentence in the quote above. Hope that helps!
reve_etrange Posted February 28, 2015 Posted February 28, 2015 So tell me Crump What part of 'if' in the sentence are you still struggling with? There is a bit of a misunderstanding going on. Crump himself is saying that the trim doesn't affect the turn rate, just the force required: A movable stabilizer trim system has no effect on how the aircraft turns. It will effect an uninformed pilots perception as the forces change and when the airplane is trimmed, he requires no force on the stick to maintain that trim speed in a turn or in level flight. That makes sense for a conventional trim system. The trim makes it easier to attain a given elevator deflection, but can't increase the maximum possible deflection. However, as I understand it, the adjustable stabilizer on the Bf-109 does change the maximum elevator deflection (relative to the rest of the aircraft). Can one of you explain why this would be incorrect? Note I was replying back to reve_etrange post where he stated the stabilizer has an effect on turns.. As his example of how qualitative data can be used to identify a flight model error. What I originally said (post #255 in this thread) was that 1) the stabilizer was frequently adjusted during maneuvering (based on pilot accounts), 2) it's required to turn tightly in the BOS 109 and 3) that seems to match the pilot account (interview of Franz Stigler, IIRC). Again based on my understanding, a given game controller deflection translates in BOS to a simulated control force, and not a stick deflection. So, I think that point stands even if the maximum effective elevator deflection is not changed.
GOAT-ACEOFACES Posted February 28, 2015 Posted February 28, 2015 (edited) again you are pulling it to a personal level.So, let me see if I understand you correclty.. Me pointing out you and Crumps mistakes about what I said is pulling it to a personal level? Or is it safe to assume that the discomfort you feeling right now is not do to me making it personal and everything to do with me pointing out your mistake? I really know now that you are the confused here.That is your opinion and your welcome to it, but, based on what I have preseted thus far, you are clearly the confused one here No problem, i highlighted the sentence in the quote above.And there is the proof if it.. Which is sad in light of the fact that I already explained it to you. Hope that helps! Edited February 28, 2015 by ACEOFACES
Sokol1 Posted February 28, 2015 Posted February 28, 2015 I use elevator trim all the time diving, climbing or turning. The 190 is a beast!! I would like to have time to find out the best values for every situation or maybe buy a Saitek trimm wheel Saitek trim wheel will work only for Bf 109 "Stabilizer Adjust"...
GOAT-ACEOFACES Posted February 28, 2015 Posted February 28, 2015 There is a bit of a misunderstanding going on. Crump himself is saying that the trim doesn't affect the turn rate, just the force required: No misunderstanding here.. I realize that is what Crump is saying.. But Crump is also trying to say that I said trim does affect the turn rate.. Which I never said! I was simply taking your example of qualitative data example of the 109 stabilizer and saying "IF" that is the case "AND" we know it to be true "THEN" you are right.. You could use that qualitative data to say there is something wrong with the FM Which should not be confused with, as Crump and Rob have done here, me saying the t stabilizer or trim or what ever affects the turn rate AoA, whatever! Rob, I realize your upset.. In that you thought you caught me in a mistake.. Seeing that opportunity you decided to jump into a thread.. A thread that you had little to no input on with regards to the topic at hand.. Other than to point out what you thought was a mistake I made.. Which is ironic coming from a guy like you who is constantly telling others how to act, i.e. Being less condescending would also help (i.e. hope that helps) It would also help if it wouldn't descent to the personal level, but staying objective and problem/discussion oriented. This coming from the guy, who's only reason for posting in the thread was to point out a mistake he thought I made.. How objective of you.. How non-condescending of you.. How non-personal of you.. How staying objective of you.. Rob, you may fool some of the people in this forum.. But not all!
BlitzPig_EL Posted February 28, 2015 Posted February 28, 2015 (edited) Sokol, I have the BF 109 stabilizer mapped to the unused throttle wheel on my CH Fighterstick. It's the most realistic trim adjustment I've ever had, as it is a wheel like the real aircraft. It's not sensitive enough I would imagine compared to the real thing, but it way better than buttons for all the other planes. Edited February 28, 2015 by BlitzPig_EL
reve_etrange Posted February 28, 2015 Posted February 28, 2015 I realise that is what Crump is saying.. But Crump is also trying to say that I said trim does affect the turn rate.. Ah, my apologies. Hopefully someone can explain if I'm wrong about the 109 stabilizer mechanism: it appears that it does change the maximum deflection of the elevator relative to a reference line along the aircraft? Sokol, I have the BF 109 stabilizer mapped to the unused throttle wheel on my CH Fighterstick. It's the most realistic trim adjustment I've ever had, as it is a wheel like the real aircraft. It's not sensitive enough I would imagine compared to the real thing, but it way better than buttons for all the other planes. I do the same (on a Saitek throttle) - it's great. I suppose it's kind of unrealistic, just because IRL you would have to take your hand off of the throttle to adjust the stabilizer. I do wish all of the wheels in all the aircraft could be mapped to controller wheels, though. 1
GOAT-ACEOFACES Posted February 28, 2015 Posted February 28, 2015 Ah, my apologies.No worries bud! Hopefully someone can explain if I'm wrong about the 109 stabilizer mechanism: it appears that it does change the maximum deflection of the elevator relative to a reference line along the aircraft?Well, it would not be the 1st time Crump was wrong.. So, I would not concluded anything yet.. Oh, and for all those reading challenged folks out there.. Me pointing out this would not be the 1st time Crump was wrong should not be confused with me saying the 109 stabilizer or trim or what ever can affect the turn. Hope that helps!
Sokol1 Posted February 28, 2015 Posted February 28, 2015 Sokol, I have the BF 109 stabilizer mapped to the unused throttle wheel on my CH Fighterstick. It's the most realistic trim adjustment I've ever had, as it is a wheel like the real aircraft. It's not sensitive enough I would imagine compared to the real thing, but it way better than buttons for all the other planes. Yes, in this case is a good option. But the guy say that want use a Saitek Trim Whell in Fw 190, for this plane is not possible map trim on axis, only keys/buttons (Fw-190 adjustable stabilizer up/Fw-190 adjustable stabilizer down).
6./ZG26_Gielow Posted March 1, 2015 Posted March 1, 2015 That is a shame!! I have trim on my joystick hat and it is easy to overreact. Using the wheel control should be a lot easier. The fact is every time you change power or attitude, you need to trimm again. Nose up trim helps a lot in a turn fight flying fw190. I would say essential. The problem is you need to trim again if you have to fly straight for a few seconds. I like most experten than ace Saitek trim wheel will work only for Bf 109 "Stabilizer Adjust"...
Crump Posted March 1, 2015 Posted March 1, 2015 hat makes sense for a conventional trim system. It applies to any trim system. However, as I understand it, the adjustable stabilizer on the Bf-109 does change the maximum elevator deflection (relative to the rest of the aircraft). Can one of you explain why this would be incorrect? An adjustable stabilizer is just a more powerful trim system but a trim system nonetheless. The advantages of the system are an extremely power trim action over the entire envelope of the design as well as reduced trim drag. The horizontal stabilizer on the FW-190 is of conventional design. It develops "negative lift" to provide a balancing moment across the aircraft's CG. http://www.grc.nasa.gov/WWW/k-12/airplane/trim.html It is not providing the lift required to meet the centripetal force and normal acceleration of gravity required to maintain a turn for the aircraft. That is the main wing. Any question? 1) the stabilizer was frequently adjusted during maneuvering (based on pilot accounts) Of course, why work and maintain that stick force when you can dial in a little trim to lighten your load as a pilot!
Bearcat Posted March 1, 2015 Posted March 1, 2015 I would hope that any aircraft that had a trim system that was initiated by a wheel or a lever would be able to be mapped to an axis ... I shudder to imagine trying to trim a P-51 with buttons.. that is not how it was... and I hope to get my Mustang in a few years time..
Wulf Posted March 1, 2015 Author Posted March 1, 2015 I've put in quite a few hours over the last day or so since the update and patch, 'fanging-about' flying the 190 on 'Normal servers'. While my personal view is that issues such as roll-rate still have not been resolved, I think the 190, as it's currently modeled right at this moment, is as good as it's ever been. I don't know if any little changes have been made since the update but it definitely feels better to me. If you enter a fight from altitude and keep things fast and aggressive you can usually do reasonably well. I note that Yaks can still catch you in a long tail-chase if you don't take steps to terminate the fight at the first opportunity but generally speaking, I've felt that, in the last day or so, I'm the one who's been responsible for my online deaths; not the 190. So, I'm reasonably happy as things stand.
unreasonable Posted March 1, 2015 Posted March 1, 2015 What are you talking about? I'm not and wasn't angry. And your feeling or "sensation" of me being borderline abusive or using ad hominem attack is probably a missinterpretation of some "anecdotal evidences" in my text. Maybe shoud have had used "I would agree" instead of "I agree" in the text part you quoted, the following "you" obviously being a general "you", not directed at you specifically. If you feel abused by an hominem attack, please quote it, I will then see if it was a bad formulation that I should correct, or a bad interpretation, or a combination of the 2. In any case, there was no intention. I agree..... but this has nothing to do with what people call "anecdotal evidences" about some kind of blurred performances perceptions. OK since you ask: "But I agree with you it's hard to understand when you don't know what a scientific approach is and what the physic of the measure is." Pretty clear cut in this case, but the same tone runs throughout your post. If you think there is anything scientific going on in what 1CGS is doing in building FMs I would like to know what it is, because it is not obvious to me. One of the main things I remember being taught about science of any kind is that you cannot test a hypothesis against the data set that was used to derive the hypothesis. If the FM builder was able to generate a hypothesis producing model from one set of data and then test it against other data this would be fine. But as far as I can see this is not what is going on here. The FM builder has a limited data set from which he builds his model. The "testing" that people seem to talking about here is purely to see if the model's outputs are consistent with the data set that was used to produce the model. If the answer is no, this just means that the model will be tweaked until a better fit is achieved. No new empirical knowledge is being produced. No science here. Just because something is expressed in quantitative terms does not make in scientific, any more than the use of qualitative terms means that something is unscientific. The criterion is testable predictions. And no, restating logical truth functions as binary digits does not magically transform them into quantities.
unreasonable Posted March 1, 2015 Posted March 1, 2015 @ACEOFACES thank you for a considered and thorough look at my point of view. The points of difference seem to come down to two main issues. 1) While not ruling out qualitative information in theory, you claim that in practice quantitative information is more reliable for a variety of reasons and easier to test. I understand this point of view in general terms, my greater skepticism stems from my exposure to economics and finance, where such a belief can lead to rapid bankruptcy. The particular case that keeps cropping up - the Fw190 in an E. Front setting - seems to have far more of the problems of limited data sources, possible bias and lack of opportunities to test. Hence qualitative information that might be redundant if the quantitative data set were richer may be useful. You asked me to provide an example: I refer you back to the supercharger gear controversy. We had quantitative graphs aplenty, but not in the form that could answer the question of what caused the gear to change. Some other graphs would have solved the problem but we did not have them. Fortunately we did not need them anyway, because we could look at descriptions of the mechanism and see how it worked. 2) More on the testing: as I said to Rama above, I cannot see what scientific testing is being done here, since no new data appears to be generated. A model is being fitted to a data set, then tested for internal consistency, fine. But what new predictions are being produced? How can they be tested? Where is the science? Of course you want your model and results not to violate any laws of physics etc. Hence my claim that Fw190 FM building is more of an exercise of historical reconstruction than a scientific program. Finally, you may need to count organs to tell if the hot looking "girl" is indeed as advertised: I can tell at a glance. Quantify that!
Recommended Posts