Is Spitfire really the BEST British fighter??? (1 Viewer)

[Anonymous]

No Im not RG, your just a little to quick with your accusations.

Says the person who accused me of altering a document and then presenting it with absolutely no evidence to support the false and slanderous accusation!

You on the otherhand, are caught red-handed mis-representing a test report you thought I didn't have access too, and now you're indignant about being called on it?

I'm willing to accept that maybe you didn't intend to do this, but I'm also going to ask you to be especially careful not to mis-represent documents you quote or reference in the future. If a document contains info that supports your position and also info that contradicts your position, if you wish to quote or otherwise refrence the document you either need to provide access to the document or you need to present both the supporting and contradicting parts.

=S=

Lunatic

 

[the lancaster kicks ass]

but at the same time he's trying to present an argument, if you're arguing a point you use your resorces to your own advantage, you're unlikely to make a point in an argument, then cancel it out with a contradicting argument............

 

[Anonymous]

but at the same time he's trying to present an argument, if you're arguing a point you use your resorces to your own advantage, you're unlikely to make a point in an argument, then cancel it out with a contradicting argument............

In these debates about history, it is important to be truthfull and to disclose fully. It is not right to present a snippet from a paragraph that misrepresents what that paragraph actually says, especially if you believe the other party lacks access to the document you are referencing.

=S=

Lunatic

 

[Soren]

Says the person who accused me of altering a document and then presenting it with absolutely no evidence to support the false and slanderous accusation!

Says the Person who accused me of being just a new 'Nick' for a totally different Person !

In these debates about history, it is important to be truthfull and to disclose fully. It is not right to present a snippet from a paragraph that misrepresents what that paragraph actually says, especially if you believe the other party lacks access to the document you are referencing.

=S=

Lunatic

I didnt do anything wrong RG !!!!!!! I was trying to show you that even at 420 mph the 109 would still turn fairly tight !!!

And why in Gods name would I think you didnt have acces to the reference !!??

With all due respect, your getting really paranoid RG !!

The reason I suspected you falsified that other document was because I had never heard such outrages cruise stats, and that I didnt see any link to your reference ! Also I had seen you "modifying" a roll-rate chart, and it looked real enough(remember the one you enhanced ?), so that the speed and rate-of roll indications were up close to the results.

(Btw after you gave me the link to the cruise speed reference I did apologize, so actually you have no right to behave this childishly RG !)

Also you provided no cruise speed for the Spit XIV, but at the same time called mine faulty ! Now Thats wrong RG !

 

[Anonymous]

Says the person who accused me of altering a document and then presenting it with absolutely no evidence to support the false and slanderous accusation!

Says the Person who accused me of being just a new 'Nick' for a totally different Person !

Jesus - you cannot take a joke man. Grrr.

In these debates about history, it is important to be truthfull and to disclose fully. It is not right to present a snippet from a paragraph that misrepresents what that paragraph actually says, especially if you believe the other party lacks access to the document you are referencing.

I didnt do anything wrong RG !!!!!!! I was trying to show you that even at 420 mph the 109 would still turn fairly tight !!![/quote]

Go back and read what you wrote. You implied that this somehow supported your argument that the 109 could out-turn the Spitfire. Clearly it does not.

And why in Gods name would I think you didnt have acces to the reference !!??

With all due respect, your getting really paranoid RG !!

Such documents are often very hard to find. You didn't know about RING's website at that time.

The reason I suspected you falsified that other document was because I had never heard such outrages cruise stats, and that I didnt see any link to your reference ! Also I had seen you "modifying" a roll-rate chart, and it looked real enough(remember the one you enhanced ?), so that the speed and rate-of roll indications were up close to the results.

Enhancement to help you see what is there is totally different from creating or altering the document to show something that is not there.

(Btw after you gave me the link to the cruise speed reference I did apologize, so actually you have no right to behave this childishly RG !)

And I told you right off where it was from - the P-51 Pilot Handbook. Your "apology" was half hearted at best, and the accusation of falsifying documents is not insignificant.

Also you provided no cruise speed for the Spit XIV, but at the same time called mine faulty ! Now Thats wrong RG !

I've not been able to find one from a reliable primary source. However, I've never seen a cruise figure for the Spitfire XIV above 325 mph, except your one fan site which does not give a reference for the data. I'm sorry, but fansite claims are not sufficient - how do you know that site is not created by some 13 year old kid who just wants the Spitfire to have been the hands down best fighter or WWII and does not understand the importance of verifying such information before presenting it as fact on the web?

=S=

Lunatic

 

[DAVIDICUS]

RG_Lunatic said, "how do you know that site is not created by some 13 year old kid who just wants the Spitfire to have been the hands down best fighter or WWII."

Hmmm. There wouldn't be any of those folks on this forum woiuld there? Lanc? Is that you?

 

[Anonymous]

RG_Lunatic said, "how do you know that site is not created by some 13 year old kid who just wants the Spitfire to have been the hands down best fighter or WWII."

Hmmm. There wouldn't be any of those folks on this forum woiuld there? Lanc? Is that you?

LOL - I don't mean to insult the kids, I'm sorry for not choosing my example more carefully.

My point is that young kids are less likely to understand the importance of not propogating false data to the public. We don't know anything about the website author, and he does not give any verifiable references for the figures he presents. That is not a reliable source.

My appologies to the younger members on this board. I'm sure they would never present suspect data as fact on such a site.

=S=

Lunatic

 

[the lancaster kicks ass]

and i'm 14 i'll have you know!!!

and actually Crazy, the founder of this site, is also 14 or 15 i think as well so be carefull what you say infront of the all powerful..........

 

[Soren]

Jesus - you cannot take a joke man. Grrr.

Well if that was a joke, then your jokes really suck !

Go back and read what you wrote. You implied that this somehow supported your argument that the 109 could out-turn the Spitfire. Clearly it does not.

I implied ? No what I implied was, that even at speeds of 420 mph the 109 would still turn fairly tight, and that previus statements such as "Above 350 mph the 109 could not turn at all because the elevator would lock up" is TOTALLY untrue !!

Such documents are often very hard to find. You didn't know about RING's website at that time.

And how the **** do you know when i had acces to any Website ?

Enhancement to help you see what is there is totally different from creating or altering the document to show something that is not there.

Yes, but how could i know your werent doing the same with other documents, as your little "Roll-chart-modifycation" looked very convincing ?

And I told you right off where it was from - the P-51 Pilot Handbook.

But no link !!! Eventhough you had it, and that was where you got it from.

Your "apology" was half hearted at best, and the accusation of falsifying documents is not insignificant.

And again I ask you, how the ¤%#% can you know if it was a half hearted or whole hearted apology ?!

Being accused of being another person isnt insignificant either ! And if you think you can back out of it just by saying it was a joke, then your mistaken.

I've not been able to find one from a reliable primary source.

RG you claimed that "300 mph" was written on the "Fourth Fighter group site", wich it wasnt !

However, I've never seen a cruise figure for the Spitfire XIV above 325 mph, except your one fan site which does not give a reference for the data. I'm sorry, but fansite claims are not sufficient

RG, the book "British Warplanes of WW2" says the same !

- how do you know that site is not created by some 13 year old kid who just wants the Spitfire to have been the hands down best fighter or WWII and does not understand the importance of verifying such information before presenting it as fact on the web?

RG how do you know that about any site ?

 

[cheddar cheese]

and i'm 14 i'll have you know!!!

and actually Crazy, the founder of this site, is also 14 or 15 i think as well so be carefull what you say infront of the all powerful..........

Actually horse is the founder of the site...

And im not surprised they think youre 13 lanc, your profile still says you are

 

[the lancaster kicks ass]

this is odd, just looking threw a couple of books i have, i have "British Aircraft of WWII" by David Mondey, i can assure you it is a very well researched book and i've found it to be of much use, and it quotes the Mk.XIV's cruising speed an 362mph!!

 

[Anonymous]

Enhancement to help you see what is there is totally different from creating or altering the document to show something that is not there.

Yes, but how could i know your werent doing the same with other documents, as your little "Roll-chart-modifycation" looked very convincing ?

If I had not presented the unmodified version first, I think you would have a point. But given that I did, I think it was clear the "modification" was only to help you read it.

And I told you right off where it was from - the P-51 Pilot Handbook.

But no link !!! Eventhough you had it, and that was where you got it from.

When the source is a publically available published document, no "link" is necessary. A sufficient number of people have access to such documents to ensure that any hanky-panky with the content will likely be caught.

I didn't want to provide a link to RING's PRO Documents until I'd downloaded most of what is on that site. It's gone down for months in the past, no telling when it might go down again, and I didn't want to temp the fates by having a bunch of people downloading it and possibly eating up the available bandwidth. This way, if it does go down and RING says he does not intend to put it back up, I can make the non-copywrited info available, and preserve the availablility of this valuable information.

Your "apology" was half hearted at best, and the accusation of falsifying documents is not insignificant.

And again I ask you, how the ¤%#% can you know if it was a half hearted or whole hearted apology ?!

That's how it appeared to me. Being that I'm the offended party, I decide how sincere I feel the apology is.

Being accused of being another person isnt insignificant either ! And if you think you can back out of it just by saying it was a joke, then your mistaken.

If you could not see the humor in my comment... I don't know what to say. Honestly, I just intended it to be funny, and I thought it was. I'm truely sorry you didn't take it that way.

I've not been able to find one from a reliable primary source.

RG you claimed that "300 mph" was written on the "Fourth Fighter group site", wich it wasnt !

I'm sure it's there somewhere.

However, I've never seen a cruise figure for the Spitfire XIV above 325 mph, except your one fan site which does not give a reference for the data. I'm sorry, but fansite claims are not sufficient

RG, the book "British Warplanes of WW2" says the same !

What exactly does it say? Does it give a time limit for such a speed? Does it give a date for the figures - post-war Spitfires were upgraded with new nozzle technology allowing faster cruises.

I'm not saying it isn't possible, just that so far I've not seen a credible source that indicates a faster than about 325 mph sustained cruise for any wartime Spitfire.

- how do you know that site is not created by some 13 year old kid who just wants the Spitfire to have been the hands down best fighter or WWII and does not understand the importance of verifying such information before presenting it as fact on the web?

RG how do you know that about any site ?

Well, some sites are .mil sites, some are aircraft manufacturers, some are museum sites, some are from respected authors (such as T. Williams) - we know something about the credibility of such sources. Some, such as the fourth-fighter-group or RING's PRO Research site provide primary source documents in the raw, which are very credible. Others provide references for the information presented, which again makes them more credible.

But a site that simply puts up data with no references... well we just don't really know. And sometimes they are presenting known wrong data - Francillon's error concering the Ki-44 mounting Ho-103's is a good example, it can be found on many sites, often w/o reference.

=S=

Lunatic

 

[Anonymous]

this is odd, just looking threw a couple of books i have, i have "British Aircraft of WWII" by David Mondey, i can assure you it is a very well researched book and i've found it to be of much use, and it quotes the Mk.XIV's cruising speed an 362mph!!

Well, that is a reputable source. Does it give a date for that figure? Does it give an altitude? Does it state whether this is "estimated" or "as tested" data? Does it give the range at that speed?

=S=

Lunatic

 

[the lancaster kicks ass]

ok perhaps i should have made myself clear, in no way did i wish to enter this argument at this time, i was simply presenting a fact............

 

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

but at the same time he's trying to present an argument, if you're arguing a point you use your resorces to your own advantage, you're unlikely to make a point in an argument, then cancel it out with a contradicting argument............

And yes RG_Lunatic does this also, but he will not admit it.

Well, that is a reputable source. Does it give a date for that figure? Does it give an altitude? Does it state whether this is "estimated" or "as tested" data? Does it give the range at that speed?

Just because it is not an American book does not mean it is not reputable and not true. sorry I had to pick some fun here, I normally do this to Lanc!


Other than that wow, I missed a lot in this thread!

 

[the lancaster kicks ass]

 

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

See I stick up for you too lad!

 

[cheddar cheese]

this is odd, just looking threw a couple of books i have, i have "British Aircraft of WWII" by David Mondey, i can assure you it is a very well researched book and i've found it to be of much use, and it quotes the Mk.XIV's cruising speed an 362mph!!

Well, that is a reputable source. Does it give a date for that figure? Does it give an altitude? Does it state whether this is "estimated" or "as tested" data? Does it give the range at that speed?

=S=

Lunatic

Actually that post there by RG was pretty sound. HE did say it was a reputable source and he looked to be just answering a question, although perhaps slightly aggressively.

 

[the lancaster kicks ass]

that makes little sence to me?? who's post was "sound"?? who was being aggressive??

 

[Soren]

If I had not presented the unmodified version first, I think you would have a point. But given that I did, I think it was clear the "modification" was only to help you read it.

Yes, it was quite clearly for help ! But thats not the point, the point is that I wasnt able to see any distortion what so ever on your small Modified Roll-chart, and thought it was maby a seperate chart for the FW and P-51 only. I didn see it was the same until i looked real hard at it, and it was even a close-up !

Also Falsifying pic's is sadly relatively easy with todays computer programs.

Anyway I asked you if the Cruise speed document was falsified, like was it a question. And when you demanded an apology eventhough you didnt apply a link to begin with, I apologized, and then you amazingly had the inkindness of not accepting my apology, eventhough i really shouldnt have apologized for anything.

When the source is a publically available published document, no "link" is necessary.

Then why did I need to link the AFDU's test-results of the 109 ? (Now your backing off on your previus statements)

I didn't want to provide a link to RING's PRO Documents until I'd downloaded most of what is on that site. It's gone down for months in the past, no telling when it might go down again, and I didn't want to temp the fates by having a bunch of people downloading it and possibly eating up the available bandwidth. This way, if it does go down and RING says he does not intend to put it back up, I can make the non-copywrited info available, and preserve the availablility of this valuable information.

Thats a pretty awkward excuse RG.

That's how it appeared to me. Being that I'm the offended party, I decide how sincere I feel the apology is.

You may decide how you feel it, but not how I mean it !

I'm sure it's there somewhere.

RG, I thoroughly went through that site, and it isnt there.

What exactly does it say? Does it give a time limit for such a speed?

No, no time limit, as cruise speed is the speed in wich the airplane can sustain without overheating.

Does it give a date for the figures - post-war Spitfires were upgraded with new nozzle technology allowing faster cruises.

Data ? You mean sources ? Yes it does, its stats are obtained from the RAF.

I'm not saying it isn't possible, just that so far I've not seen a credible source that indicates a faster than about 325 mph sustained cruise for any wartime Spitfire.

RG the Spit IX's cruise speed was 325 mph.

Well, some sites are .mil sites, some are aircraft manufacturers, some are museum sites, some are from respected authors (such as T. Williams) - we know something about the credibility of such sources. Some, such as the fourth-fighter-group or RING's PRO Research site provide primary source documents in the raw, which are very credible. Others provide references for the information presented, which again makes them more credible.

But a site that simply puts up data with no references... well we just don't really know. And sometimes they are presenting known wrong data - Francillon's error concering the Ki-44 mounting Ho-103's is a good example, it can be found on many sites, often w/o reference.

Well this so called fan site seems very much to use the same speed numbers as all my available sources, so theres your reference.