Is Spitfire really the BEST British fighter???

[the lancaster kicks ass]

i'm just waiting for his response really, i can't wait to see what he has to say...........

 

[DJ_Dalton1]

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.

http://www.luftwaffe.cz/michalski.html

 

[the lancaster kicks ass]

it's rude to ignore me dj..........

 

[DJ_Dalton1]

it's rude to ignore me dj..........

Lanny, I'm multitasking. I'm sorry for ignoring will responds asap...lol

 

[the lancaster kicks ass]

oh this's gonna be good...........

and multi tasking, what kind of a man are you??

 

[DJ_Dalton1]

oh this's gonna be good...........

and multi tasking, what kind of a man are you??

Yeah, I agree concentrating well on one thing is the key to life.

Ok, The lancaster sucked for a number of reasons. First off, it lacked a belly turret and when I'm playing flying sims I always zoom up and gut shoot it. Its defenseless from underneath.

Secondly, I don't think its particularly fast so its easy to get multiple passes on it before it gets to target.

I think its got a decent bomb load, but if you hit it jusssssssst right.........KABOOM the whole thing goes up in a really nice pyrotechnics display.

Lets see what else....oh yeah........they had to go night bombing with it because they were getting murdered during the day. I see an escort there in your picture but really can't make it out. It looks more like an Aircobra than a Spitfire to me. Do you know what it is?

Anyway, night bombing resulted in the Luftwaffe's response with Wilde Sau and early one morning the Germans got confused and landed at Manston instead of France I guess and the U.K. got a nice bomber hunter to test and everyone is all confused because of it.

Thats about it.

 

[DAVIDICUS]

Why did DJ_Dalton's name suddenly change to DJ_Dalton 1?

This isn't his alter ego is it?

 

[cheddar cheese]

Right, the Lancaster didnt have belly turret in an effort for a bigger bomb bay. It escaped the German Night Fighters by outmanoevering them.

It was also plenty fast enough. Faster than the B-17 which I gather your going to say was better than it.

And I dont think Lancasters ever bombed during the day. The RAF's early bombers did and got slaughtered, hence the change to night bombing. Hell, it was probably better than day bombing.

And you get your opinions from flight sims? Dude, as good as they may be, you cant just go around saying something because on a certain flight sim its rubbish...or maybe its you thats rubbish...

Hopefully lanc can shed some more light on your points.

BTW I think the escort is an RAF Mustang.

 

[DJ_Dalton1]

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.

Sure, those are all legitimate reasons for questioning what pilots say they observed. In the Hayes P-51 dive story, its possible it was a K and not a lowly G-6. Certainly thats possible. We don't have a date to look at there. I doubt he mistook a FW190D for a 109, but thats possible too I suppose. But then again, according to the posters here ALL German planes had a governor on them for a maximum 750 kph dive. 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 shit if you try to dive out or climb out of this one." It didn't go down like that.

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.

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? 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.

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.

All primary source documents have to be taken for what they are.

I really dont know what that means. The Soviets ran tests with the Vk-107 and it had phenomenal performance indicated. The motor was so unreliable they pulled it and went back to putting PF-105's in the Yak 9's. It was a complete failure in combat, couldn't be run at maximum rpm, burned up at lesser RPM and was yanked from the planes, yet folks point to the trials and say that was a heckuva motor. To this day you can find Yak's in Russia to refurbish, but you can't find a Klimov to rebuild and its not because they've cornered the market.

The same was true to a lesser extent with the British tests. They were massaged and reflect performance the combat Spits didn't match.



Re F4U-4C and Jaleco: .

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...

Well, maybe....however when I was involved in the discussion they were insisting it was a wartime aircraft. Whether they were playing dumb or changed their tune when the evidence was presented to indicate otherwise is something only they know for sure. They were not the most discerning guys, of that I"m certain.

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

Not exactly... but I'm not going to rehash this and have to demonstrate with documents once again, (which I didn't bother saving), that this plane wasn't even commissioned by the Marines until 1946. Thats right....1946... You culd look it up.

What is clear is that the -4C models came off the production line between Sept. '44 and Feb. '45, that's about it.[/b]

Not exactly....this plane was being produced into 1947...once again, you could look it up.

 

[Anonymous]

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.

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.

As for the dive, the nature of the dive is not specified. 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. This makes no sense, what would the motivation of the RAE be to collect bad data? I would agree sometimes the parameters of their testing were advantageous to the Spitfire, but this is because they tended to test turn rates at 10-15,000 feet at 250-275 IAS. While this might tend to make the Spitfire look a little better than it was in relation to the FW190, and significantly better than it really was w.r.t. the P-51, it makes the 109 look better than it really was w.r.t the Spitfire. The 109's manuverablity degraded with speed even worse than that of the Spitfire.

=S=

Lunatic

 

[Anonymous]

But then again, according to the posters here ALL German planes had a governor on them for a maximum 750 kph dive.

I've never seen any such statement. But, the 109 did have such a govener - it's called a prop. The pitch of the prop could not be adjusted to a steep enough angle to allow more than 750 kph in a dive without driving the engine above its 3000 rpm absolute redline (200 rpm higher than its redline). Much above this rpm, the engine would go poof.

=S=

Lunatic

 

[Anonymous]

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.

That's total BS. These reports were, for the most part, limited to very small numbers of people. In the reports I have, the list of recipients is clearly identified and rarely numbers more than 50, and is clearly marked as secret and not for distribution of any kind. From these reports, guidelines as to how to engage the enemy were generated and distributed to combat pilots, but these were very general in nature. Mostly, the reports were used in the futher development of fighters, by engineers.

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.

Yes, and given the way that the German squadrons flew, one pilot would tend to get the credit for a disproportionate number of kills. It's even known that sometimes kills scored by other members of the squadron were credited to their "ace" to improve his score card.

As for the P-38, it had no problems in the PTO because none of the Japanese planes could come up to engage it above about 20,000 feet. In the ETO and MTO, this was not the case. Most P-38 pilots in that theater had less than 25 hours flight time in the P-38. Switching from cruise condition to combat condition was difficult, and this lead to many easy kills for the Germans.

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

Also many of the problems with the earlier P-38's in the ETO and MTO were allieviated or eliminated in the H,J,K models which mostly fought in the PTO.

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?

There is no reason to believe this at all. P-47's were known to conduct such bounces even when badly outnumbered. Usually they could strike and run successfully.

Also, you need to read that account again. Those P-47's were after another German plane, flown by Heinz Rossinger. Bartel and his wingman Oberfähnrich Rolf Brand, bounced those P-47's.

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.

It would be interesting to see if he really scored that kill. By this time in the war, Germany was no longer maintaining strict proof of kill requirements, or good records either. And clearly, there was no guncam footage. So how did that kill get confirmed?

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.

Yes that is interesting. But it just goes to show that the "Experten" got special treatment all around. They got the hot planes far earlier than most German pilots, and they hunted with a whole squadron trying to set them up for kills (or giving them credit for kills they really didn't score).

=S=

Lunatic

 

[DJ_Dalton1]

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.

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

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?

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.

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.

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

 

[Maestro]

That's why I distrust information from most web sites. Most of them are made by amateurs.

Personnally, I prefer to trust an expert like Alfred Price or a ex-fighter pilot and WW II veteran like Pierre H. Clostermann than any s*cker claiming that they know something because they own a web site.

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.

"Pierre Clostermann was born on February 28 1921 at Curitiba, Brazil, where his father worked as a French diplomat. At an age of only sixteen he aquired his pilot's licence in November 1937. He was educated in Paris and studied engineering in USA when France fell...

In 1941 he joined the Free French Forces (341 "Alsace" Squadron). The following year he was transferred to RAF and 602 Squadron, where he served in Spitfire. During this time he destroyed at least 11 enemy aircraft, 2 probable and seven damage.

On 4 March 1945 he joined No 274 Squadron and the Hawker Tempest. His first Tempest score was a Bf 109 on his second day during a "cannon test".
In the middle of March 1945 he was posted as a Flight commander to No 56 Squadron. With this unit he destroyed a Bf109 in the air. On 8 April he was transferred to No 3 Squadron as "A" Flight commander where he on 20 April scored two Fw 190D-9s'.
Clostermann's final score in Tempest is at least 12 destroyed, 6 shared and 2 probables . He was awarded the DSO and DFC and Bar in addition to French, Belgian and American decorations.

Final Total : 33 destroyed

19 FW-190
7 ME-109
2 Dornier 24
1 Fieseler 156
1 JU-252
1 JU-88
1 JU-290
1 Heinkel 111

On the ground he destroyed :

7 JU 88
6 DO-18
4 HE-177
2 Arado 323
1 JU-252
1 Blom-Voss

Add to it some 72 locomotives , 5 tanks , 1 submarine and 2 destroyers..."

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]

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.

This guy was obviously a skilled pilot, but I don't think I commented upon him before. I have a much higher opinion of Tempests than Spitfires and most of his kills were apparently in the Tempest. Thats a lot of FW's.

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.

First off, the website doesn't claim the 109 was better than the Spitfire. Thats up to the reader to judge. But, that website is one of the finest in this field out on the net. I wish there was someone equally as thorough in the other countries documenting their fliers. He updates that site often and adds or modifies profiles. Most of the accounts clearly identify Werk No.s, promotion dates, significant engagements. Its very detail laden. He's acquired Luftwaffe records, but like everything in this field its a work in progress. Theres still no profile for Marseilles and Hartmann.

 

[Maestro]

In fact, Clostermann scored (at least) 11 confirmed kills in Spitfires. (341 and 602 Squadrons being equipped with Spitfire Mk. IXc). While he scored 12 confirmed kills in a Tempest.

According to this web site : http://perso.wanadoo.fr/frenchaces/as/m+c.html , Clostermann scored 3 Bf-109 and 7 FW-190 in a Spitfire Mk. IX.

 

[Anonymous]

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.

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. I've read over a large number of these tests, and they always specify such things as underwing gondolas. In fact, after having read through many of these tests, I find it hard to believe the presense of underwing gondolas would not be restated throughout the document - normally such things are.

It is about the search for the truth. You however, have some agenda to prove the 109 was much better than the Spitfire - a position largely contradicted by fact.

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

Read the bottom of the report you reference. It clearly says it's been edited to provide only those details releavent to the Spitfire. No real conclusion can be made from such a partial report. However, in most cases, the guns were removed from German aircraft when they were captured, and used for seperate weapons evaluations. It is quite likely the Spitfire tested against had no guns as well. Using your criteria of "proof", the most likely case is that neither plane had any guns at all.

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?

Love to hear this one...

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.

Again, I do not believe there were any Gondolas on this plane. If they were there when it was captured, they were almost certainly removed before this test.

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.

I'll concede that point. We don't know. But I think the +18 lbs boost comparison is totally legit.

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

Let me ask you this Dalton... what makes you think those German accounts are accurate? I've seen pleanty of cases where claimed kills were proven bogus. If the plane was headed down and was leaking anything, it was a "kill". This was especially true on the E. front and from 1944 on on the W. front.

The only way to confirm a kill from any side is either guncam footage showing it explode, hit the ground, or pilot bail out, or through cross checking with recorded losses on the other side. All sides exagerated kill claims.

=S=

Lunatic

 

[DJ_Dalton1]

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.

The judge has removed you from the jury for cause: Bias and ignorance.

What we need is the entire document, not just snippets, so we can see the exact conditions of the planes involved in the tests.

I agree the whole document might help. I searched for it and can't find it. Then again, i'm not sure it would shed more light. We have uncontroverted evidence regarding the following:

-Two "Wilde Sau" Bf 109G-6/U-2's with underwing 20mm pods for bomber hunting "mistakenly" attempted landings at Manston Airfield in the very early morning hours of June 21, 1944.

-One crash landed and was lost.

-The other, Werk No. 412951, landed successfully.

-It was painted thereafter in RAF markings.

-It was sent to Boscombe Down for comparative trials..

-No other 109G-6/U-2 was captured by Allies during the war.

-A 109G-6/U-2 was tested at Boscombe Down vs. a Spit IX with an engine capable of +25 boost.

-The 109G-6/U-2 outperformed/equal performed said Sptifire in some aspects of the test.

http://www.ww2aircraft.net/forum/viewtopic.php?p=59729#59729

Your contention, despite lack of evidence, is that The tested 109G-6/U-2 may not be the aircraft aquired June 21, 1944 at Manston.

or

If it is that same aircraft, you're assumption is they removed the underwing gun pods despite a complete lack of evidence indicating such, in the process ignoring the fact that the pods are still there in all the pictures with the nice new shiny RAF paint scheme.

Thats some pretty creative "We need conclusive proof" supposition. The proof it was a pod 109 is ignored and the burden of proof to prove it was podded is reasserted a second time.

How about this for the burden of proof....The aircraft taken into custody and shipped to Boscombe Down had pods, was painted with pods and is presumed to be tested with pods. The burden shifting to those that would now maintain it was not podded.

The Spit IX couldn't dive or zoom with a 109.

The following was Adolph Galland's brother. It wasn't a Spitfire that got him.

http://www.luftwaffe.cz/gallandw.html

 

[Maestro]

I agree with RG at 100% and I stated it before : if the gun pods would have been there during the test, they would have written it somewhere.

 

[Norman_Bates]

well it sure looks like it probably was a bomber killer to me.

it seems pretty clear. I didn't realize Spitfires had such a tough time with the Germans until i read this string here