the lancaster kicks ass
Major General
- 19,937
- Dec 20, 2003
i'm just waiting for his response really, i can't wait to see what he has to say...........
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
DJ_Dalton1 said:Anyway, that's another story. Ok, for the third time try this one and keep in mind its a gondola winged Wilde Sau Bf 109G-6/U-2 being tested vs. a cleanly configured Spitfire IX utilizing 25lbs of boost at certain points in the testing:
"Dive
19.........Comparative dives between the two aircraft have shown that the Me.109 can leave the Spitfire without any difficulty.":
http://www.fourthfightergroup.com/eagles/109gtac.html
Prove this claim.
the lancaster kicks ass said:it's rude to ignore me dj..........
the lancaster kicks ass said:oh this's gonna be good...........
and multi tasking, what kind of a man are you??
Pilot accounts are of limited value. They often mis-identify the opposing plane, especially the specific variant. Pilot skill also enters into the picture big-time. Personal bias is also a huge factor. And then their is the effect of time - which can badly distort such recollections.
All primary source documents have to be taken for what they are.
They doubted it saw service but it was possible it did... Since there was no late-war multi cannon armed US plane, they chose to add the -4C rather than completely remodle the gun/damage system...
And as for the -4C not having seen service, there is some evidence that it did. There are accounts by airfield personel of 4 bladed Corsairs having arrived in China armed with 4 cannon. The problem is that there are almost no primary source documents which say where any of the F4U variants went
What is clear is that the -4C models came off the production line between Sept. '44 and Feb. '45, that's about it.[/b]
DJ_Dalton1 said:DJ_Dalton1 said:Anyway, that's another story. Ok, for the third time try this one and keep in mind its a gondola winged Wilde Sau Bf 109G-6/U-2 being tested vs. a cleanly configured Spitfire IX utilizing 25lbs of boost at certain points in the testing:
"Dive
19.........Comparative dives between the two aircraft have shown that the Me.109 can leave the Spitfire without any difficulty.":
http://www.fourthfightergroup.com/eagles/109gtac.html
Prove this claim.
I think I already did prove it and that I proved it beyond a reasonable doubt.
http://www.ww2aircraft.net/forum/viewtopic.php?p=59729#59729
But lets assume someone was obstinate or thick headed enough to hang an otherwise clearly united jury on the major charge. You can always settle for a lesser charge or find the path of least resistance with a blockhead and in comparing the planes its really not relevant how the Bf 109G-6/U-2 was configured for the dive, because regardless of how it was configured it out dove the Spitfire IX.
So say the 109 was clean if you wish. The evidence is clear indicating otherwise, but it really doesn't matter regarding the dive.
DJ_Dalton1 said:But then again, according to the posters here ALL German planes had a governor on them for a maximum 750 kph dive.
DJ_Dalton1 said:You see the problem for the victors is that they really can't explain how a guy like this one following beat up on the best planes they had despite being outnumbered and fighting many times from below:
http://www.luftwaffe.cz/bartels.html
They just can't explain it, so they look to justify their victory in the war upon their righteousness and the superiority of their equipment. The Allies certainly appear to have had the righteous element but there is nothing to support the technological claims for their equipment, other than their very biased and contorted non combat testing that just didn't hold up in combat. It's really quite amazing and I have no doubt that part of the testing involved morale. They wanted genuine tests to help their pilots and made recommendations regarding such, but who thinks when they were stinky they were gonna say "You're in deep s**t if you try to dive out or climb out of this one." It didn't go down like that.
DJ_Dalton1 said:That Experten above shot down 9 Spitfires, 4 of which were obviously late model. He got 11 P-51's, 9 P-47's and 14 P-38's. The P-38 was a plane the Japanese really couldn't deal with unless the pilot got stupid.
3. As a typical case to demonstrate my point, let us assume that we have a pilot fresh out of flying school with about a total of twenty-five hours in a P-38, starting out on a combat mission. He is on a deep ramrod, penetration and target support to maximum endurance. He is cruising along with his power set at maximum economy. He is pulling 31" Hg and 2100 RPM. He is auto lean and running on external tanks. His gun heater is off to relieve the load on his generator, which frequently gives out (under sustained heavy load). His sight is off to save burning out the bulb. His combat switch may or may not be on. Flying along in this condition, he suddenly gets "bounced", what to do flashes through his mind. He must turn, he must increase power and get rid of those external tanks and get on his main. So, he reaches down and turns two stiff, difficult gas switches {valves} to main - turns on his drop tank switches, presses his release button, puts the mixture to auto rich (two separate and clumsy operations), increases his RPM, increases his manifold pressure, turns on his gun heater switch (which he must feel for and cannot possibly see), turns on his combat switch and he is ready to fight. At this point, he has probably been shot down or he has done one of several things wrong. Most common error is to push the throttles wide open before increasing RPM. This causes detonation and subsequent engine failure. Or, he forgets to switch back to auto rich, and gets excessive cylinder head temperature with subsequent engine failure.
4. In my limited experience with a P-38 group, we have lost as least four (4) pilots, who when bounced, took no immediate evasive action. The logical assumption is that they were so busy in the cockpit, trying to get organized that they were shot down before they could get going.
http://home.att.net/~ww2aviation/P-38-2.html
DJ_Dalton1 said:Anyway he was at about 24,000 feet when they saw drop tanks falling from Jugs diving at them from above. It doesn't say for sure, but who doubts that they were outnumbered at least 2-1?
DJ_Dalton1 said:He got one according to the account and then went missing. They found his plane 24 years later. I'm assuming they found some remains. Its a romantic story.
DJ_Dalton1 said:One last thing I find interesting in this story is that he was flying a G-10. Some will say that plane was not in service until winter of '44. He was flying it in June.
I have seen no proof that the 109 in question had gun pods.
Furthermore, it would be inconsistant with the RAE tests for it not to have been mentioned had this been the case.
Again, I've never said the 109 would not pull away from the Spit IX at the start of a dive. However, it was unable to extend a 1200+ foot lead from an equal start, and if the dive was long enough the spitfire would catch it.
You seem to want to pick and choose comments from different reports which support your position while ingoring those which dispute it. In the reporte sighted, http://www.fourthfightergroup.com/eagles/109gtac.html, for instance, the Spitfire comes out way on top of the 109 in the overal comparison. What's up with that?
And why the complaint about the 25 lbs of boost on the Spitfire. This was commonly available to Spitfires by about the end of '43 when 100 octane gas was supplied to RAF fighter units. And even at 18 lbs boost, the Spitfire still appears to be superior.
Finally, you seem to believe these tests were rigged to make the Spitfire look good.
Maestro said:Dalton, if I remember well, you said in an other post you didn't know Clostermann ? Well, I really respect that man (even if he is French). Here is his short bio.
And earlier, you were talking about propenganda. How can you trust a web site called www.luftwaffe.cz and then claiming the 109 was better ? I think you ate the propagenda bait.
DJ_Dalton1 said:I have seen no proof that the 109 in question had gun pods.
The problem is Lunatic, that you are not looking for proof. You are looking for a confession. You want the RAF to tell you "This 109 had underwing gondolas".
Theres more than sufficient evidence to prove that the tested plane was a gondola version. Certainly more than enough for a court of law. A confession is very rare in the law and its not necessary to reach a conclusion or verdict.
Heres the evidence again. The clear indication is the underwing gondola 109G-6/U-2 (TP 814) was sent to the A.F.D.S. for comparative testing. You'd have to maintain there was a second variant tested without gondolas or that they removed the underwing gondolas. Nothing in the reports comes close to indicating that, including the capture records.
http://www.ww2aircraft.net/forum/viewtopic.php?p=59729#59729
What it boils down to is that you have been discredited upon the dive speeds, among other things, and you've gotten very pigheaded and are going to concede no more ground. You probably aren't even a Spitfire fanatic, but you figure theres wiggle room and you desperately want to save face, figuring you're very loose play with statistical "facts" will cloak you with some type of expertise among those that know less. Who knows, with some of folks here you may even be able to pull it off. But I know that you understand the reality of it. Its just not about a search for the truth with you, the same way its not about a search for the truth with those that sometimes write books about the conflict.
DJ_Dalton1 said:Furthermore, it would be inconsistant with the RAE tests for it not to have been mentioned had this been the case.
What? They dont mention the armament in these tests. You can't even tell many times if they have a loadout and many times they don't. So they'd mention the pods, but not removal of the pods?...lol
DJ_Dalton1 said:Again, I've never said the 109 would not pull away from the Spit IX at the start of a dive. However, it was unable to extend a 1200+ foot lead from an equal start, and if the dive was long enough the spitfire would catch it.
I"ve about reached a tolerance level with you. Ok, cite your source. This will be interesting. The 109's left the Spits in the dust in dives. Espcially in hard G. It wasn't even close and then what they did is zoom climb above them and even though the Spit was sometimes faster in level flight and was sometimes geared for remarkable slow speed climb performance it couldnt stay with the 109's? Do you know why?
DJ_Dalton1 said:You seem to want to pick and choose comments from different reports which support your position while ingoring those which dispute it. In the reporte sighted, http://www.fourthfightergroup.com/eagles/109gtac.html, for instance, the Spitfire comes out way on top of the 109 in the overal comparison. What's up with that?
You know whats up with it....Gondolas. But even then you're characterization is off in the IX comparison. The Gondola 109 is actually faster at certain altitudes, dives better and zoom climbs as well. Its only in comparison with a XIV that the performance is clearly at a disadvantage.
DJ_Dalton1 said:And why the complaint about the 25 lbs of boost on the Spitfire. This was commonly available to Spitfires by about the end of '43 when 100 octane gas was supplied to RAF fighter units. And even at 18 lbs boost, the Spitfire still appears to be superior.
The point being +25 boost was the maximum for the Spit and the tests are very questionable as to whether maximum ata was allowed for the German planes. You know the Brit planes were run at maximum, whether they could really handle that in combat or not, but with the German planes in these tests that is very much debateable.
DJ_Dalton1 said:Finally, you seem to believe these tests were rigged to make the Spitfire look good.
The tests were set up so the Spitfires performed at maximum. You can't say that about the German planes. At very high speed the 109 did suffer compressability, but the Experten made kill passes at 400 mph plus.
The Spitfires finally got this one
http://www.luftwaffe.cz/pflanz.html
You are so full of crap its unbelievable Dalton! It's not about "a preponderance of the evidence", which often leads to false convictions. It's about reasonable proof, which you've provided none.
What we need is the entire document, not just snippets, so we can see the exact conditions of the planes involved in the tests.