Spitfire XIV vs Me 109G/K
- Thread starter Lucky13
- Start date
Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
Kurfürst
Staff Sergeant
Unfortunately, that site is notoriously biased against Axis aircraft.
It also ignores a lot of evidence that has been unearthed and known long ago. Basically, it pushes forward the agenda of the site's author who wishes to show that the most famous Allied fighter types were almost infinitively superior to their Axis counterparts. This is simply achieved there
by comparing the worst examples of Axis fighters at some lower power output against the best examples on the Allied side.
For example, the '109K-4' figures on that graphs are taken from a 109K-6 curve, and they don't show either the 1.98ata boost rate that appears to have been introduced in March 1945 for two-two Gruppes of JG 27 and 53 on the western front. The only /AS engined fighter figures shown are those equipped with gondolas, despite flight tested results for clean aircraft are available. The G-10 subtype is conviniently ignored, despite some 2500 being produced etc. The comparisons with 109E and 109G are similiarly flawed. Very generous conclusions are being arrived for the Allied planes, often based on pure guesswork and/or wishful thinkning, while direct evidence on the Axis side is simply ignored, or dismissed, if it's positive to the picture.
I am a bit amazed you've posted this, the site and it's author has a fairly controversial reputation regarding objectivity, to put it mildly. IMHO read the original reports 'as is', and draw your own conclusions and safely ignore stuff that's merely about a 21st century re-enactment of 1940s propaganda pamphlets.
It also ignores a lot of evidence that has been unearthed and known long ago. Basically, it pushes forward the agenda of the site's author who wishes to show that the most famous Allied fighter types were almost infinitively superior to their Axis counterparts. This is simply achieved there
by comparing the worst examples of Axis fighters at some lower power output against the best examples on the Allied side.
For example, the '109K-4' figures on that graphs are taken from a 109K-6 curve, and they don't show either the 1.98ata boost rate that appears to have been introduced in March 1945 for two-two Gruppes of JG 27 and 53 on the western front. The only /AS engined fighter figures shown are those equipped with gondolas, despite flight tested results for clean aircraft are available. The G-10 subtype is conviniently ignored, despite some 2500 being produced etc. The comparisons with 109E and 109G are similiarly flawed. Very generous conclusions are being arrived for the Allied planes, often based on pure guesswork and/or wishful thinkning, while direct evidence on the Axis side is simply ignored, or dismissed, if it's positive to the picture.
I am a bit amazed you've posted this, the site and it's author has a fairly controversial reputation regarding objectivity, to put it mildly. IMHO read the original reports 'as is', and draw your own conclusions and safely ignore stuff that's merely about a 21st century re-enactment of 1940s propaganda pamphlets.
- Thread starter
- #3
Lucky13
Forum Mascot
I had no idea mate.... 
Glider
Captain
I admit that I don't see it as being that biased, certain areas I would agrewe with but not all.
For instance if you want to compare the 1.98ATA boost that only came into use in the last 2-3 months of the war as mentioned by Kurfurst then that should be compared to the Spit 21. The Spit XIV was in service well before that and its fair to compare it against the earlier version of the K.
The site often quotes pilots who were there and those quotes are valid being real quotes. The fact that planes were delivered in less than pristine condition at a time when Germanywas under significant pressure is only to be expected.
The G10 may well have not been mentioned but there were different versions of the Spit XIV as well so that in my mind doesn't stack up as a complaint. To do a detailed breakdown of the comparison of all the versions of the 109 against all the versions of the Spit XIV would take a book, not an article.
Treat it as a guide and you could do a lot worse.
For instance if you want to compare the 1.98ATA boost that only came into use in the last 2-3 months of the war as mentioned by Kurfurst then that should be compared to the Spit 21. The Spit XIV was in service well before that and its fair to compare it against the earlier version of the K.
The site often quotes pilots who were there and those quotes are valid being real quotes. The fact that planes were delivered in less than pristine condition at a time when Germanywas under significant pressure is only to be expected.
The G10 may well have not been mentioned but there were different versions of the Spit XIV as well so that in my mind doesn't stack up as a complaint. To do a detailed breakdown of the comparison of all the versions of the 109 against all the versions of the Spit XIV would take a book, not an article.
Treat it as a guide and you could do a lot worse.
Kurfürst
Staff Sergeant
This should give some insight into the selection methods of tests to be displayed in the 109G article.
Take note that all of these tests are long available to the author of the article, he just prefers to use them selectively. Also note that all tests showed in the site's article are actually well below the minimum tolerance to gain the acceptance of the LW's quality control (B.A.L.). Such planes would have been never accepted by the LW for service. Those tests are generally achived with well used test bed aircraft, used by the manufacturer for researh purposes, and have gone through much use already.
I'll answer later, if I can find the time.
Take note that all of these tests are long available to the author of the article, he just prefers to use them selectively. Also note that all tests showed in the site's article are actually well below the minimum tolerance to gain the acceptance of the LW's quality control (B.A.L.). Such planes would have been never accepted by the LW for service. Those tests are generally achived with well used test bed aircraft, used by the manufacturer for researh purposes, and have gone through much use already.
I'll answer later, if I can find the time.
Glider
Captain
Thanks for the chart its very interesting. One question, the 109G reference entry do we know what version that is or is it an average of the whole series?
Thaks again, much appreciated.
Thaks again, much appreciated.
Kurfürst
Staff Sergeant
Given that the reference line is exactly the same as Messerschmitt's calculations for Bf 109G-1 from May 1942, I'd say w 99% probabilty it's for a Bf 109G-1 (equivalent of G-2/-3/-4, as those only differ in the presence of pressurized cocpit and radio type fitted).
Basically the Erla factory tests underline the top speed being around 660 km/h, ie. as in the Messerschmitt calculation, this is underlined by Rechlin's trials and also by the trials performed in the Soviet union on the captured Bf 109G-2 example. There's some variation between performance of individual planes, so in each case the airframe condition and possible external stores must be considered.
Most G-1 through G-4 had semi retractable tailwheel, this changed in Spring 1943 (when these types were being phased out in favour of G-6) when an enlarged non-retractable t/w was fitted. This reduced top speed by 12 ph at SL. G-5/G-6 and later had this non-retractable tailwheel as standard, 109K had a fully retractable t/w w. fairings covers.
PS : Keep in mind that's an old graph I posted, there some other tests known ever since, I'll update it with those if possible.
BTW, if you look at the 109E article it shows similiar trends. It shows two 109E figures, one being the Kennblatt, which list 550 km/h max but does not note the power used. From other tests it can be verified it's for 30-minute power instead of full power, however.
The other graph is for the 109E prototype, V 15a. The article claims the plane 'run over the established max. ratings for the DB 601A at 1.33ata'. The claim is baseless, to put it mildly. You can read the full report on my site, URL below. Basically the report is very clear, the engine was exactly the contrary to the claims, was down on power. It has been bench tested and found to develop some 40-50 HP less than would be guaranteed by engine manufacturer, as it run only at 1.33ata instead of 1.35ata. The level speed curve was corrected by Mtt AG to the normal, guaranteed engine output at 1.35ata, and can be found on the same graph paper.
Naturally, the normalized performance curve at guarantee engine power is ignored, and the curve which shows clearly the down-on-power at 1.33ata is shown in the comparison in the article.
There has been multiple discussions on this and the other issues, and this is well known to the author who sadly shows little willingness to correct these issues with the objectivity of the articles.
Basically the Erla factory tests underline the top speed being around 660 km/h, ie. as in the Messerschmitt calculation, this is underlined by Rechlin's trials and also by the trials performed in the Soviet union on the captured Bf 109G-2 example. There's some variation between performance of individual planes, so in each case the airframe condition and possible external stores must be considered.
Most G-1 through G-4 had semi retractable tailwheel, this changed in Spring 1943 (when these types were being phased out in favour of G-6) when an enlarged non-retractable t/w was fitted. This reduced top speed by 12 ph at SL. G-5/G-6 and later had this non-retractable tailwheel as standard, 109K had a fully retractable t/w w. fairings covers.
PS : Keep in mind that's an old graph I posted, there some other tests known ever since, I'll update it with those if possible.
BTW, if you look at the 109E article it shows similiar trends. It shows two 109E figures, one being the Kennblatt, which list 550 km/h max but does not note the power used. From other tests it can be verified it's for 30-minute power instead of full power, however.
The other graph is for the 109E prototype, V 15a. The article claims the plane 'run over the established max. ratings for the DB 601A at 1.33ata'. The claim is baseless, to put it mildly. You can read the full report on my site, URL below. Basically the report is very clear, the engine was exactly the contrary to the claims, was down on power. It has been bench tested and found to develop some 40-50 HP less than would be guaranteed by engine manufacturer, as it run only at 1.33ata instead of 1.35ata. The level speed curve was corrected by Mtt AG to the normal, guaranteed engine output at 1.35ata, and can be found on the same graph paper.
Naturally, the normalized performance curve at guarantee engine power is ignored, and the curve which shows clearly the down-on-power at 1.33ata is shown in the comparison in the article.
There has been multiple discussions on this and the other issues, and this is well known to the author who sadly shows little willingness to correct these issues with the objectivity of the articles.
Chriss1958
Airman
If I may add my two-penny-worth:
Captain Eric Brown, the noted allied test pilot, has often commented that many of the enemy aircraft he tested were not in the best of condition and could not give of their best. He also frankly admited that many were not flown within the utmost of their flight envelope, firstly because of their poor condition, second because of pilot unfamiliarity (no flight handbook available) thirdly the test pilots fear of crashing and lastly, and very importantly, the fear of damaging, or crashing, a valuable airframe.
Both Hartmann and Rall have commented that 9 times out of 10 it's the pilot that makes the difference. Look at the Finnish Air Forces record, flying with a rag-tag collection of hand-me-downs they kept the Soviet AF at bay.
Regards to all
Chris
Captain Eric Brown, the noted allied test pilot, has often commented that many of the enemy aircraft he tested were not in the best of condition and could not give of their best. He also frankly admited that many were not flown within the utmost of their flight envelope, firstly because of their poor condition, second because of pilot unfamiliarity (no flight handbook available) thirdly the test pilots fear of crashing and lastly, and very importantly, the fear of damaging, or crashing, a valuable airframe.
Both Hartmann and Rall have commented that 9 times out of 10 it's the pilot that makes the difference. Look at the Finnish Air Forces record, flying with a rag-tag collection of hand-me-downs they kept the Soviet AF at bay.
Regards to all
Chris
drgondog
Major
Unfortunately, that site is notoriously biased against Axis aircraft.
It also ignores a lot of evidence that has been unearthed and known long ago. Basically, it pushes forward the agenda of the site's author who wishes to show that the most famous Allied fighter types were almost infinitively superior to their Axis counterparts. This is simply achieved there
by comparing the worst examples of Axis fighters at some lower power output against the best examples on the Allied side.
For example, the '109K-4' figures on that graphs are taken from a 109K-6 curve, and they don't show either the 1.98ata boost rate that appears to have been introduced in March 1945 for two-two Gruppes of JG 27 and 53 on the western front. The only /AS engined fighter figures shown are those equipped with gondolas, despite flight tested results for clean aircraft are available. The G-10 subtype is conviniently ignored, despite some 2500 being produced etc. The comparisons with 109E and 109G are similiarly flawed. Very generous conclusions are being arrived for the Allied planes, often based on pure guesswork and/or wishful thinkning, while direct evidence on the Axis side is simply ignored, or dismissed, if it's positive to the picture.
I am a bit amazed you've posted this, the site and it's author has a fairly controversial reputation regarding objectivity, to put it mildly. IMHO read the original reports 'as is', and draw your own conclusions and safely ignore stuff that's merely about a 21st century re-enactment of 1940s propaganda pamphlets.
Kurfurst - while you may postulate that Mike Williams is 'notoriously biased' or 'fairly controversial' his is the only site I have found with the actual comparison reports as flown and recorded.
Further, how do you conclude that he is only interested in demonstrating the Allied superiority? Have you thought to send him LW Flight test data that he doesn't have? I would bet he would post them.
If you want a different 'view' find and present the LW comparisons to the captured Allied a/c flown by Rosarius Zirkus. Use facts rather than your (biased?) opinions.
Which references would you point to with the 'real' facts? Jez curious..
Regards,
Bill
drgondog
Major
Chris - dead on. A Hartmann or Rall in level playing field against a 51 or 47 or Spit XIV is odds on able to win the fight - ditto a Tuck or Johnson or Preddy or Gabreski or Johnson or Beckham.
These forums tend to spend ENTIRELY too much time on minutae or proving why the 109 or Fw190D or Ta152 was superior to all Allied types when the airwar had more to do with the collective skills and numbers of the combatants than 'individual performance' Most dead fighter pilots never saw the one that killed them. The ones that survived tended to fight where their own a/c had one or more advantages and no single fighter was supreme in all envelopes against all other fighters.
At the end of the day there were one hell of a lot more excellent aircraft and fighter pilots in 1945 fighting with Red or White Stars and Roundels than the Swastika
PS I had a lot of spirited debates w/Brown re: most important versus Best. He is objective and he flew them all but he has his own biases (as we all do)
Now you're "dead on"!
Thats about the best thing I have seen someone post in a while in a topic like this.
Agreed as well.
Kurfürst
Staff Sergeant
There are many others, there are objectively put P-40 site on the internet, F4U sites, various sites that collect both Allied and Axis aircraft; me myself run a Bf 109 performance test site - here :
Kurfurst - Your resource on Messerschmitt Bf 109 performance
You may notice there are no potentially 'subjective' articleson my site, only tests and transcripts of original sources. You can also find some reports Mike Williams like to hide from public on his site (some of his stuff he got via me anyway, so I know which ones he likes to hide).
Because we're dealing with his ways for long time. I and many others have the same original documents he's quoting and moreover we know of documents he's not quoting though having it. We know what's written in there, and then we see Mike doctoring the contents of the documents. Curiously, he only shows the best reports for the Allies and the worst reports only for the Axis aircraft all the time). He simply cherry picks the ones that shows one side in the best light, and the ones that show the other side in the worst light.
It's not a case that he is honestly ignorant of some reports; take a look at the 109G article for example, and compare them to the 109G tests Mike list on his site; only the worst ones are shown in his own comparison articles, Soviet trials, Finnish trials results are dismissed with ridiculus excuses, but the true reason is that they'd make his cherry picking of the worst tests possible for the 109G obvious.
There are number of occasions where he is quite clearly manipulating and twisting the orginal report's content. Take his his 'translation' of German documents in the XIV/109K article is a good example, he mistranslated it and even ommitted several sentences that got in the way of the agenda.
The claim in 109E article that the 109V15 prototype was running above authorized boost is another example, he purely made it up - the report in facts notes the opposite, the engine was bench tested and was doing about 50 HP less than it should !
Frankly I could go on with this for ages, since just about every single paragraph in his articles contains some sort of spin or manipulation. It would be a boring excercise. A cheat needs to be only exposed once.
The controvery around his comparison articles has been bought to Mike's attention years ago. There was a general agreement about their nature, that they simply cherry picked the best Allied reports, and the worst German reports.
Mike's response to the collective criticism was highly hypocritical, and replied that perhaps it would be most prudent to remove the 1.98ata Bf 109K flight performance results as well (he is uneasy with them because it's a very close match to the Spitfire XIV. Originally, he draw them up in such a way that it could barely seen, with thin yellow lines on white background.)
That's not quite a straight answer, is it?
The guy is simply dishonest to the bone, he lies and manipulates his article to support his agenda. God only knows why, but he has been always like that. Ask around a bit, he only got his credibility reduced to zero this way in the aviation community.
Take an example of his Spitfire IX/109G comparison article. Can you find JL 165 factory serial Spitfire IX tests on the comparison graphs ? The JF 934 tests ? No, because Mike only likes to show the best tests for the Allies. Worst ones only for Axis, instead of trying to show both sides of the coin for both sides.
Does he show the Erla, NII VVS trials, FAF, Rehlin's trials for the Bf 109G in his comparison articles...? Nope, even though he obviously knows of these tests, he mentions these tests, and some like the Erla and Rechlin trials are even listed in the 109G section of his site. Check out yourself.
Every German boost clearance for higher engine outputs probably never happened if we go by his site, in fact, none of his articles are willing to show Luftwaffe aircraft performance on their authorized maximum power output.
Dear Bill, I have thousends of pages LW documentation currently available, I am fairly well established what those birds could do and what they could not.
I am not seeking to prove or disprove which and who's birdie was better, I am simply annoyed by the ways of one man who uses his site for the sole reason to sell his own agenda to those people who don't have the possibilty to read all these reports themselves. I am annoyed by the fact he misleads people like you, who can't check the truth behind his statements, and the fact that this distortion is damaging to the historical facts of aviation.
Finally you have to ask yourself the question, why does not Mike never addresses the charges of bias and manipulation, despite the fact he regularly visit these boards, wheter the biased nature of his site is mentioned by me or others.
He knows very well what he is doing over there, but by now, most of us know as well. An honest man would face such charges, a dishonest one will sneak away and pretend they don't exist.
Kurfürst
I also think that your site is good but in your messages your sometimes are somewhat devious.
For ex http://www.ww2aircraft.net/forum/aviation/p-51d-mustang-vs-fw-190-dora-8339-7.html
your 06-11-2007, 05:11 PM message.
" Lukas Schmid obtained 0.805 Mach and 906 km/h with a Bf 109F-2 after having it's aileron deflection limited to half as aileron and around ,75 before that. In both cases it was well over the dive limits of the aircraft. I believe that's the highest they actually recorded on an early model, the later ones had reinforced wings so may have reached higher speeds. In other tests they quite regulary hit around .75 without particularly aiming at it."
I wasn't surprised when I saw it even if I'm pretty sure that you know the test report which clearly says that the plane was a 109F with G's wings, ie with stiffer, or as you wrote reinforced, wings.
So, if Mike is biased so are your own messages sometimes.
I also think that your site is good but in your messages your sometimes are somewhat devious.
For ex http://www.ww2aircraft.net/forum/aviation/p-51d-mustang-vs-fw-190-dora-8339-7.html
your 06-11-2007, 05:11 PM message.
" Lukas Schmid obtained 0.805 Mach and 906 km/h with a Bf 109F-2 after having it's aileron deflection limited to half as aileron and around ,75 before that. In both cases it was well over the dive limits of the aircraft. I believe that's the highest they actually recorded on an early model, the later ones had reinforced wings so may have reached higher speeds. In other tests they quite regulary hit around .75 without particularly aiming at it."
I wasn't surprised when I saw it even if I'm pretty sure that you know the test report which clearly says that the plane was a 109F with G's wings, ie with stiffer, or as you wrote reinforced, wings.
So, if Mike is biased so are your own messages sometimes.
Kurfürst
Staff Sergeant
Indeed the 109F-2 in that tests, question had G-wings -The report mentions somewhere G-fluegel as I recall. When I was speaking of later models, I spoke of the 109K, not the 109G. You may note however the 109K had increased the dive limit to 850 km/h from the 109F/G's 750 km/h. The structure appears to be reinforced. Also note that I clearly indicated the uncertenity when I noted that it may have reached higher speeds.. especially as the 109F's DB 601N engine was a limiting factor as to what airspeed the dive could be started at.
I don't quite see what's biased about mentioninig the 109K wings were reinforced compared to the G-wings... besides the fact it's silly to compare short, vague posts to pages long articles that quite clearly state something the author knows to be wrong, and was told to be wrong, and had time to double-check before publishing.
If you wish to throw red herrings into the discussion to draw the attention away from Mike's doings... which is the subject as I understand... I have to ask myself 'why'. People are sometimes wrong, not phrase themselves clearly, that's normal. It's entirely different when someone knows what he's telling is not true, and yet stating it. It's called a lie.
When someone tells that a 109E report is for an aircraft that is running above it's engine limits, and in fact the report very clearly states the engine itself is not developing the specified power, and he keeps telling the same, then it's a lie. When someone picks the best allied reports, 'forgets' about the not-so-nice allied reports, and then compares them to the worst Luftwaffe test reports when he knows there are other ones that show better results, but won't show that part of the picture, it's a lie again.
Mike still owns the community the answer about why he is so one-sidedly selective with the facts. Why he compares the Merlin 70 Spitfire IXHF for example to the 109G on early 1943 ratings, when the IXHF did not see operations until spring of 1944 for example..
I don't quite see what's biased about mentioninig the 109K wings were reinforced compared to the G-wings... besides the fact it's silly to compare short, vague posts to pages long articles that quite clearly state something the author knows to be wrong, and was told to be wrong, and had time to double-check before publishing.
If you wish to throw red herrings into the discussion to draw the attention away from Mike's doings... which is the subject as I understand... I have to ask myself 'why'. People are sometimes wrong, not phrase themselves clearly, that's normal. It's entirely different when someone knows what he's telling is not true, and yet stating it. It's called a lie.
When someone tells that a 109E report is for an aircraft that is running above it's engine limits, and in fact the report very clearly states the engine itself is not developing the specified power, and he keeps telling the same, then it's a lie. When someone picks the best allied reports, 'forgets' about the not-so-nice allied reports, and then compares them to the worst Luftwaffe test reports when he knows there are other ones that show better results, but won't show that part of the picture, it's a lie again.
Mike still owns the community the answer about why he is so one-sidedly selective with the facts. Why he compares the Merlin 70 Spitfire IXHF for example to the 109G on early 1943 ratings, when the IXHF did not see operations until spring of 1944 for example..
Kurfürst
do You have any proof that K's wing was stiffer than G's, which anyway was a later type than F-2? After all a couple years ago your explanation to K's higher dive limit was the rectable tail wheel.
Reason to my message was your continual Mike bashing. Most of internet sites seems to have some sort of agenda. Mike site is an excellent source of Allied flight tests, and I used it as such. Yours is excellent source of Bf 109 tests, and I used it as such. And after all there is in Your site the German test which compared Bf 109E and Bf 110C with Spitfire, Hurricane and Hawk 75. At least earlier without explanation that at least the British fighters were not in same conditions than those met by Germans during the BoB. In 1940 in the German test German fighters were clearly better than British and in the British test, surprise surprise, conclusion was other way round. And in real life it seems that Spit and Bf 109E more or less equals.
do You have any proof that K's wing was stiffer than G's, which anyway was a later type than F-2? After all a couple years ago your explanation to K's higher dive limit was the rectable tail wheel.
Reason to my message was your continual Mike bashing. Most of internet sites seems to have some sort of agenda. Mike site is an excellent source of Allied flight tests, and I used it as such. Yours is excellent source of Bf 109 tests, and I used it as such. And after all there is in Your site the German test which compared Bf 109E and Bf 110C with Spitfire, Hurricane and Hawk 75. At least earlier without explanation that at least the British fighters were not in same conditions than those met by Germans during the BoB. In 1940 in the German test German fighters were clearly better than British and in the British test, surprise surprise, conclusion was other way round. And in real life it seems that Spit and Bf 109E more or less equals.
Okay I will say this again one more time. Why bring Mike Williams into this and bash him. He is not hear to answer for himself.
Every thread gets trashed with this bash Mike Williams stuff and then people come in and bash Kurfurst and it goes back and forth and frankly I find it stupid and ignorant.
Mike is not here to back himself up, so leave him out of the discussion. If you people wish to do this, then do privatly in PM's.
Every thread gets trashed with this bash Mike Williams stuff and then people come in and bash Kurfurst and it goes back and forth and frankly I find it stupid and ignorant.
Mike is not here to back himself up, so leave him out of the discussion. If you people wish to do this, then do privatly in PM's.
Kurfürst
Staff Sergeant
You're trying to switch the subject, Juha. The question is why the evidence is manipulated on the site, and you're talking about something entirely different.
It won't work. Strawman arguements to put words into my mouth won't work either.
Address the question or open a new thread if you want to talk about something different.
People have the right to know the truth about the tricks in those articles.
Don't you agree?
If you've noticed, I have no problem at all with the reproduction of aircraft tests on the spitfire site. They are very useful and all.
The problem is with the articles on the site which manipulate the evidence clearly in one side's favour.
Is this a crime or what...?
You entirely miss the point. I've put up a German tactical trial to my site, just as I put up various flight tests from various dates. It has nothing to do with the BoB at all. It's just there to people to read it.
And oh yes, Mike Williams has this claim on his site, he even goes as far claiming that 'no Spitfire ever met a 109 without 100 octane fuel in it's tanks' - no evidence to that of course, it's only Mike's assertion. Or should we say, a fanboi always assuming the best conditions for his pet aircraft, and the worst for the competing aircraft.. he's also claiming CSP propellors being standard fitting in 1939 etc, when the entire literature on the Spitfire homogenously agrees there was a crash-retrofit programme which did not finished until about mid-August. So while Mike very optimistically assumes 100 octane being the only fuel Spitfires were running at, in contrast of evidence (see below), he's quite clearly making up things on his own about CSP props.
Do you know BTW that Mike and Neil was told on butch's board by an Australian member that this was not true, who cited an Australian letter found in the Australian national archieves that detailed the use of 100 octane fuel in 1940, and which was rather clear that Fighter Command did not fully convert to it until November 1940, after the 'Battle' ended?
Why is such evidence is ignored on Mike site, can you tell me? Or, from where on Earth did Mike take the claim the DB 601N powered Emils came 'towards the end of the Battle', when in fact they were around from early July 1940 the latest, and this is something he knows very well from discussions he participated in?
Mike knows all that for a long time, and continues to ignore it, as he ignores any evidence that crosses the agenda, that is a fact and people have the right to know it. And I'll continue to occasionally criticize him for all that until he makes proper changes in his articles to reflect the historical facts.
This is something we all know won't happen anytime soon. When he was first critized for it, instead of making corrections his response was going into a frenzy and putting another spin on the facts.
As for noting it, pardon me but as far as I can see it's a thread on Mike's 'comparison articles' between the Spitfire and the Bf 109. I don't 'bash' Mike in any other thread, but I feel it's fairly appropriate to point out in a thread on Mike's articles that those articles are little more than a bunch of lies, crafted by a Spitfire fanatic. Sorry if I put it blunty, but I tend to be straightforward.
It's a shame, considering that with the same effort, he could have put up something useful.
I don't quite see how this comes to the question of comparison articles on Mike William's site.
My site makes no comparison between airplane - I've seen on Mike's site where this leads, and I try to avoid that mistake he had made by cancelling out all the credibility he gained by those articles. In time I'll put up the British tests on the 109E and others, only that I prioritize on material that is yet unknown to the public.
Users who are viewing this thread
Similar threads
