Spitfire XIV vs Me 109G/K

[drgondog]

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..

Actually Kurfurst - neither Mike nor you "owe" anything to the 'community'. I see the web pages and laborious and costly maintenance as a service to the community. You are each free to collect and present as you wish.

I have contributed to his site and will continue to do so - he is certainly free to publish or reject as he chooses but I have found him to be a.) very courteous, b.) enormously helpful to my own research and c.) a gentleman.

Last - I haven't seen Mike publish any personal comparisons - the ones I have read are from USN, RAF, USAAF, North American, LW etc - and BTW I believe I have noted in prior threads here when I found say a USN comparison between a 51 and a F4U where I believe bias replaced facts - but each person is free to ask themselves what are the facts?

When my father described his experiences in flying the two seat 109 at Gablingen and the Fw19D he could not recall the exact model number of either and was careful to phrase his comparative observations versus a 51D-25 by noting a.) he didn't have significant time in either and b.) didn't have an objective, data based set of performance figures to accurately judge acceleration, turn, etc... so you take what you want and leave the rest.


Regards,

Bill

 

[Juha]

"You're trying to switch the subject, Juha"
I'm not trying to chance subject, I'm just curious because I'm interesting in Bf 109.

"People have the right to know the truth about the tricks in those articles"

Yes, but I'd like to see it done by more polite way.

"The problem is with the articles on the site which manipulate the evidence clearly in one side's favour."

I don't see it as a too bad problem, because Mike's graps show the atas used in Bf 109s. Of course reader must know some basic facts to fully understand the the relevance or irrelevance of Mike's comparisons. But same goes to the German test in Your site. And I appreciate that You have put it there. I myself in your situation would have put some explanations in the preface but it is your site. And I don't think it's a crime.

"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?"

Now this is interesting but in itself don't mean much. If for ex. a Spit sqn at Castletown or a Defiant sqn near Hull used 87 oct. in Sept 40, so what? That has no relevance in fighter vs fighter combat over Southern England. It's a different matter if a Spit sqn operating from Biggin Hill used it in mid Sept 40.

And now I follow Adler's advice and quit from this thread.