0战？没仔细看。。。

系统莫名吞贴

My point was that whatever number you pick Hartmann was a good combat pilot.
Claims for all pilots of all nationalities are debatable. They all overclaimed. The questions are by how much and with what intent.
Some,a few,are dishonest and it can be shown to be so.There is the famous case of pilots from JG 27 strafing sand dunes and claiming victories. There are cases of claims being witnessed by colleagues who either weren't flying or in one famous case were no longer serving in the same unit. I'm not naming names,it sets off a mindless opinionated debate and serves no purpose,they are easy enough to find if you look.
Many honest men overclaimed,not fraudulently. I'd be surprised if the two you mentioned didn't.It's a reflection of the confusion of air to air combat.
The RAF,like other airforces did there best to check claims and get a true figure for enemy losses but look how far off they were in the BoB. The same applies to every airforce throughout the war.

军盲表示看不懂

Like the F4U-4, the conflicting performance data on the P-80 is confusing, and commentaries on the P-80 referencing unavailable books and documents add to the confusion.
The comment that most confuses me is that the P-80 was tested against the Me-262 and was found wanting and so embarrassed the AF that the test results were withheld.
I bought “Arrow to the Future” by Walter J. Boyne and he indeed makes the statement that test were conducted by a Al Boyd and the test results were only recently found that showed the Me-262 “had better speed, rates of climb at different altitudes, and turning radius and that this data was “suppressed”. He also referred a book “The Lockheed P-80”, which I ordered and now have. That information surprised me in two ways. First, in 1946, military budgets were being decimated. Typically, today, the AF emphasizes it aircraft short comings in order to scare congress into more money to develop new fighters, the XP-86 was in the concept cycle at this time and may have benefited from a poor review of the P-80. Of course times do change and maybe the AF was concerned about cuts to the fighter program because of lack of performance.
The second issue I have is with other data I have on the P-80 that tends to contradict the possibility of such poor performance. The Me-262 may have out performed the P-80 but shouldn’t have embarrassed it. First, the XP-80, which was a bit smaller than the XP-80A, was able to do 502 mph, or only 38 mph less than the Me-262 with 62% of the thrust of the Me-262. In addition the XP-80A, with 4000 lb thrust was able to do 553 mph. The P-80 design was definitely clean.
Data review of my own data, “Spitfireperformance”, and other googled sites revealed several data source for the two planes. These are the data source I have found for the Me-262.
Spitfireperformance document on British test on German jet propelled aircraft. Although they claim to reflect performance of data provided by Germans, it has lower performance levels for the Me-262 and the thrust appears low.
German documents on speed of Me-262 with the Jumo 004B engine. This is the speed I will show although it appears faster airspeeds at lower levels than other sources.
Russian data that appears as just published data. I will show climb data from this site since it conforms to other sources.
Me-262 Pilot Debrief . German pilot Hans Fey who apparently flew acceptance test on the Me-262 and stated that minimum airspeed was 515 mph at some altitude below 13,000 ft., which is quite a bit below the airspeed stated in the German document above.
Arrow to the Future, a book on Me-262 by Walter J. Boyne which was a bit of a disappointment in performance data. What it did show was standard data points. It did show that the climb rate of the Me-262 was 3937 ft/min at SL.
This is the data source I have found for the P-80.
From Spitfireperformance:
3 December, 1946 test by AAF on airspeed comparison of production P-80A