improving the 109??

[stona]

"Fine! How many Spits were lost just to take off and landing during the BoB and how many to actual combat?
I'll bet you $1,000.00 against $100.00 that, either this claim, "more losses to accidents than to combat" is either true given the most thorough modern research,..."

Pick any day between Wednesday 10th July and Thursday October 31st 1940 and I can give you Fighter Command operational squadron losses and damages for that day. I absolutely guarantee that those to enemy action exceed those due to all other causes by a large margin.
I will gladly take your bet, because I have the data in front of me
Cheers
Steve

 

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

I was actively engaged in flying, maintaining and building from scratch many aircraft. I was an EAA Menber, I flew at every Base that had a Flying Club and often rented interesting planes on the open market after leaving the Service and becoming an "Independent Contractor and Civilian Consultant to the DoD, State Department and Various foreign governments" when I had such "Disposable income" that I could afford it.
As to your post, I would not think that different Squadrons with different types of planes would constitute a "Combined fleet", but that is just my opinion?

Where you shooting sharks with an M60 while well beyond it's effective range while "flying" these aircraft?

 

[pbehn]

Fine! How many Spits were lost just to take off and landing during the BoB and how many to actual combat?
I'll bet you $1,000.00 against $100.00 that, either this claim, "more losses to accidents than to combat" is either true given the most thorough modern research, or is stated as fact in more books published at the time, than is disputed at the time!
Willing to put your money where your mouth is?

From Bungays "The most dangerous enemy"

Fighter command losses 10 July to 11 August P195

Total losses 162 combat 115 Accident 47
Total damaged 174 combat 106 accident 68

However these are all accidents including taxiing low level aerobatics wheels up landings etc not just take off and landing 28 losses including 6 fatalities occurred at night..

Please arrange payment of $1000 to the RAF benevolent fund, thanks.

 

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

Bumping this...

How about if I fly along in a helicopter at 5000' and hose sharks basking in the Gulf of Tonkin with an M-60?

I call BS!

The effective range of the M-60 is 1200 yards. 5000ft is 1600 + yards. Then you have to take into account the effect of the rotorwash and the wind caused by the moving aircraft. All of this with a suppression weapon.

Before you go any further, I was a US Army helo Crew Chief/Door Gunner and used the M-60.

Take your "No shit there I was..." story somewhere else.

 

[pbehn]

"Fine! How many Spits were lost just to take off and landing during the BoB and how many to actual combat?
I'll bet you $1,000.00 against $100.00 that, either this claim, "more losses to accidents than to combat" is either true given the most thorough modern research,..."

Pick any day between Wednesday 10th July and Thursday October 31st 1940 and I can give you Fighter Command operational squadron losses and damages for that day. I absolutely guarantee that those to enemy action exceed those due to all other causes by a large margin.
I will gladly take your bet, because I have the data in front of me
Cheers
Steve

Oi, you, Its my $1000

 

[GrauGeist]

I'm assuming military flying clubs. Let's see - Point Mugu? China Lake? EDW? Vandenberg? What years?

don't forget Los Alamitos, El Toro, March, Long Beach, San Diego and I think 29 Palms?

 

[FLYBOYJ]

Shooter, I hope you answer some of these queries soon as I am arranging a place in cyberspace for you.

 

[GrauGeist]

Oi, you, Its my $1000

hey hey, I get some of that!

 

[pbehn]

I have answered every one. See the colored replies above. Your problem is that you came in late and have confused things I wrote with things other people said I wrote???

When do I see the receipt for $1000 paid to the RAF benevolent fund?

 

[stona]

To be entirely accurate the tailplane incidence could be altered by the trim wheel of a Bf 109
The ailerons and rudder were not trimable from the cockpit. They had fixed tabs that could be adjusted on the ground.

At least the Spitfire had a trimable rudder, the ailerons were also ground adjusted, by hammering the trailing edge!

Cheers

Steve

 

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

I have answered every one. See the colored replies above. Your problem is that you came in late and have confused things I wrote with things other people said I wrote???

I am still waiting for your response to my post about your Shark sniping with an M60 story...

 

[FLYBOYJ]

I have answered every one. See the colored replies above. Your problem is that you came in late and have confused things I wrote with things other people said I wrote???

No - I have read everything you posted and for the most part I think you're a full of shit poser. If you flew at EVERY aero club, tell me the arrival and departure procedures out of EDW - they've been about the same for as long as the aero club has been there.

 

[GrauGeist]

My Google foo is weak, so I'll leave that up to you.

Your argument is weak...don't rely on Google as a source nor excuse.

The F4U was the ensign killer

The Me262 had a frightening kill-to-loss ratio and was in more numbers than several other TYPES employed during the war. So your assumption isn't holding up.

Still waiting to see factual numbers on Spitfire & Bf109 pilot ground losses.

 

[stona]

When do I see the receipt for $1000 paid to the RAF benevolent fund?

You didn't choose a day or days or a squadron or squadrons so that I can actually give you their losses and damage
I guess you'll have to take my word for it!

Cheers

Steve

 

[pbehn]

You didn't choose a day or days or a squadron or squadrons so that I can actually give you their losses and damage
I guess you'll have to take my word for it!

Cheers

Steve

Funny old world, I had just read that chapter this afternoon while the tennis was on, I did quote a time period and losses damged for the RAF.

 

[pbehn]

Please feel free to partake! It is an open challenge.
I feel bad when people either misquote me, or twist what I say to something that is not related to the argument at hand. And I fall back on the time honored tactic of all nerds throughout time, make the challenge a wager!
This all started because I posted a picture and a list of things that could be done to make the 109 a better plane. Very few have actually addressed any of the other ideas, and many have used part of what I said to change the topic, like the Spitfire hade the same narrowly spaced landing gear and that somehow made it OK on the 109? Then some guy states that the accident rate was 20% and that it was because of "Night Opps" as if that makes it all right? Then I get blamed for the 20% statement. Right!
I would have thought that 10% would have been horrendous and enough to cause great worry?

No, you said the more spitfires were lost to take off and landing accidents than to enemy action, if that were true the BoB would have been lost. It may well be true of the seafire, that is a completely different plane and theatre.

 

[Elmas]

Very true. I have a good 650+ hours of combat time, and almost all of it was spent 25 to 100 ft over the ground.

Being up at 5000 ft. would just make you a juicy target.

and never fly across a rice field, so I was told....

 

[stona]

Why, I have not seen the reply that proves the point was wrong?

Pbehn's post #351 for a start.

 

[pbehn]

Why, I have not seen the reply that proves the point was wrong?

again


From Bungays "The most dangerous enemy"

Fighter command losses 10 July to 11 August P195

Total losses 162 combat 115 Accident 47
Total damaged 174 combat 106 accident 68

However these are all accidents including taxiing low level aerobatics wheels up landings etc not just take off and landing 28 losses including 6 fatalities occurred at night..

Please arrange payment of $1000 to the RAF benevolent fund, thanks.

 

[GrauGeist]

I feel bad when people either misquote me, or twist what I say to something that is not related to the argument at hand. And I fall back on the time honored tactic of all nerds throughout time, make the challenge a wager!

Not a single person has taken a word you've said and "twisted" it or taken it out of context.
You're being directly challenged for the nonsense your slobbering.
If you can't handle it, back out, but don't start crying along those lines.
Stand up or shut up.

This all started because I posted a picture and a list of things that could be done to make the 109 a better plane. Very few have actually addressed any of the other ideas, and many have used part of what I said to change the topic, like the Spitfire hade the same narrowly spaced landing gear and that somehow made it OK on the 109? Then some guy states that the accident rate was 20% and that it was because of "Night Opps" as if that makes it all right? Then I get blamed for the 20% statement. Right!
I would have thought that 10% would have been horrendous and enough to cause great worry?

No, it all started because you're posting bullsh!t and backing up your claims with nothing.
The F4F Wildcat had a narrow track maingear too...I suppose NOW you'll apply that same claim of high pilot attrition because of that, too?