pbfoot
1st Lieutenant
fat chance he'll do that I don't believe he is capable of admitting a mistake
Wing breakage: 109 or Spitfire?
- Thread starter claidemore
- Start date
Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
- Status
Kurfürst
Staff Sergeant
Nope, all KF does is misquote other people's postings and say things that were not said.Which is why it is so easy to mistrust much of what he says or posts.
Moderator please - this person first accused me of select quoting the 1942 British paper and shared, than implied, several times in this thread and elsewhere that I outright forged the page from Spitfire II manual I posted in the thread, the absurdity of which claim can be verified since Glider in the meantime also have found and posted the same manual of identical content from a different, independent source.
Despite this member did not retract or apologize for his accusations, and continued to rely on hysterical, ad hominem attacks after receiving a clear warning from Adler. It continually poisons the atmosphere, and replaces the mature discussion based on verifiable sources with pitiful accusations and conspiracy theories of forgery.
The use of such underhand tactics make any serious discussion impossible, as it either forces the participants of the discussion to lower themselves to this level, or leave the discussion.
Alright final warning! You all act like children! People can not learn a damn thing on these forums because people can not act like adults! Soren and m kenny could not either. They chose to ignore it when moderators told them to stop the bullshit! They are both permanently banned from this forum. We are serious when we say to quit the bullshit. You can discuss these things without acting like children!
For crying out loud Harrison acts more mature than you guys, and he is only 14!
If you guys have problems with each, then you need to either:
1. Take it to a PM.
2. Take it off of these boards.
It is detrimental to the other members of this forum.
As stated, this is the final warning! NO more what so ever at all! If you keep up this bullshit, then you all will join Soren and m kenny! That goes to everyone involved!
Do you all understand?
For crying out loud Harrison acts more mature than you guys, and he is only 14!
If you guys have problems with each, then you need to either:
1. Take it to a PM.
2. Take it off of these boards.
It is detrimental to the other members of this forum.
As stated, this is the final warning! NO more what so ever at all! If you keep up this bullshit, then you all will join Soren and m kenny! That goes to everyone involved!
Do you all understand?
Last edited:
Kurfürst
Staff Sergeant
This may be of interest. Its the link Kurfurst posted to the copy of the Pilots Notes he was using. It shows the hard copy Kurfurst posted, where the pilots notes came from that he used and my observtions as to some of the differences between the notes.
This is very different to notes I posted.
View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ExWfh6sGyso ... Roman numbers?
Glider
Captain
Kurfurst
On the link to the 100 octane thread you should check out
a) your posting 108 where you wrote
Please see the Spitfire II pilots notes from July 1940, showing similiar limitations when 87 octane fuel is used (a PDF version can be found at Zeno's Warbirds website). The hardcopy you posted showing the Spit II Pilots notes with both 87 Octane and 100 Octane.
b) my posting 112 where I wrote
Re the Pilots Notes we have an interesting situation. I also have a copy of the Spit II Pilots notes dated July 1940 and they only mention 100 Octane. Its odd as I would expect the Pilots notes for around May 1941 to mention both fuels as by that time they were being passed to training units that didn't have 100 Octane.
c) My Posting 116 where I wrote I have been looking at the two different copies of the Pilots Notes and the one on Zenos warbirds site as quoted by Kurfurst cannot be for June 1940. I say this as in section 35 page 9 on the firing controls it gives a description of the controls for the IIA which had 8 x LMG and the IIB with 2 x 20mm and 4 x LMG. In June 1940 the IIB wasn't even a glimmer on the horizon.
The original one only mentions the LMG and doesn't refer to it as a IIA only a II which again is correct.
Its only fair to add that Zeno's is dated June 1940 so no blame can be given to Kurfurst for his confusion.
There is no doubt that
a) you posted the Zeno website Spitfire II as evidence,
b) that I checked it out
c) that I commented on the differences
To pretend that you didn't is clearly wrong
PS In view of your keeness (post 102 this thread) to get people to retract inaccurate statements and/or apologize for any accusations, the above clear evidence and your statement
Originally Posted by Kurfürst
It should be noted that all the above claims by Glider are made up on his own regards the contents of the manual - it doesn't contain anything like he says, in fact he just posted exactly the same manual I have...
Can I look forward to your retraction and apology?
On the link to the 100 octane thread you should check out
a) your posting 108 where you wrote
Please see the Spitfire II pilots notes from July 1940, showing similiar limitations when 87 octane fuel is used (a PDF version can be found at Zeno's Warbirds website). The hardcopy you posted showing the Spit II Pilots notes with both 87 Octane and 100 Octane.
b) my posting 112 where I wrote
Re the Pilots Notes we have an interesting situation. I also have a copy of the Spit II Pilots notes dated July 1940 and they only mention 100 Octane. Its odd as I would expect the Pilots notes for around May 1941 to mention both fuels as by that time they were being passed to training units that didn't have 100 Octane.
c) My Posting 116 where I wrote I have been looking at the two different copies of the Pilots Notes and the one on Zenos warbirds site as quoted by Kurfurst cannot be for June 1940. I say this as in section 35 page 9 on the firing controls it gives a description of the controls for the IIA which had 8 x LMG and the IIB with 2 x 20mm and 4 x LMG. In June 1940 the IIB wasn't even a glimmer on the horizon.
The original one only mentions the LMG and doesn't refer to it as a IIA only a II which again is correct.
Its only fair to add that Zeno's is dated June 1940 so no blame can be given to Kurfurst for his confusion.
There is no doubt that
a) you posted the Zeno website Spitfire II as evidence,
b) that I checked it out
c) that I commented on the differences
To pretend that you didn't is clearly wrong
PS In view of your keeness (post 102 this thread) to get people to retract inaccurate statements and/or apologize for any accusations, the above clear evidence and your statement
Originally Posted by Kurfürst
It should be noted that all the above claims by Glider are made up on his own regards the contents of the manual - it doesn't contain anything like he says, in fact he just posted exactly the same manual I have...
Can I look forward to your retraction and apology?
Last edited:
Njaco
The Pop-Tart Whisperer
Stop with the "He post, she post" cr@p! Like Adler said, this is ridiculus. And as far as apologies, you all need to start a whole thread for that!!! I've been reading this nit-pick stuff across 3 maybe 4 threads. It has got to stop. Your points don't matter anymore because it is so difficult to follow. It makes no sense.
Stop!
Stop!
Glider
Captain
Fair enough, I will just let others make up their own minds.
If I hear anymore "he said she said bullshit", Soren and m kenny will have some company.
The threads are no longer informative, but it is almost impossible to find any usefull information in all the childish bullshit that is written. I know children that act more mature!
Again: Any more BS and it is over. There are no warnings, and it does not matter what thread.
The threads are no longer informative, but it is almost impossible to find any usefull information in all the childish bullshit that is written. I know children that act more mature!
Again: Any more BS and it is over. There are no warnings, and it does not matter what thread.
- Thread starter
- #109
claidemore
Senior Airman
Just want to point out that this poll closes on Feb 4, 2010.
Thus far it's approx 62% of opinion that the Spitfire wing was stronger.
It's unfortunate that advocates of either plane often feel the need to 'prove' that their favorite was better in any and every respect to it's principal opponent, or failing that must find some insignifficant but fatal flaw in the other that 'proves' it was a useless hunk of tin.
The fact is, when comparing two types of fighter aircraft, both will have performance advantages over the other, which may or may not be advantages over other types.
In the case of wing strength/weakness of the Spitfire and 109, we can't prove which was stronger, and in any case the difference was probably not that great.
But we have been shown two different approaches to corecting the reported problem. The Luftwaffe reduced diving speed limitations, which would not have improved pilot confidence in the plane. A mistake IMO.
The RAF found fault in a technical glitch, (arguably at squadron level) which was easily solved. So... 'problem solved', 'carry on lads', 'nothing to worry about!'.
Consequently we have a perception, that is still evident to this day judging by this polls results, that the Spitfire wing was stronger. That's a huge phsycological advantage for the pilot of the Spitfire.
On the subject of use of 100 octane fuel, interesting as it is academically, IF the RAF was using primarily 87 octane during BoB (which I do not believe was the case), and the use of 100 octane was not a significant contributor to winning the battle, then what was?
109 pundits have argued that the Hurricane and Spitfire did not have a turn advantage.
They argue that RAF fighters did not have a performance advantage from use of higher octane fuel.
They argue that 109 pilots were more experienced and better trained.
They argue that the 109 gun system was superior.
They argue that Hurricane and Spitfire fuel tanks were more vulnerable to fire.
They argue that accidents due to landing gear were no different for the 109 than the Spitfire.
109s were easier to produce, easier to repair, had fuel injection instead of carburators, cannon vs mgs, used better tactics, enjoyed numerical superiority, etc, etc, etc.
This plane was completely successful against every nation and plane it went up against (including the USSR in 1941), as well as Hurricanes in France.
Yet when they went up against Spitfires during BoB, they were ultimately unsuccessful.
The old Spitty must have been able to do something better.
Thus far it's approx 62% of opinion that the Spitfire wing was stronger.
It's unfortunate that advocates of either plane often feel the need to 'prove' that their favorite was better in any and every respect to it's principal opponent, or failing that must find some insignifficant but fatal flaw in the other that 'proves' it was a useless hunk of tin.
The fact is, when comparing two types of fighter aircraft, both will have performance advantages over the other, which may or may not be advantages over other types.
In the case of wing strength/weakness of the Spitfire and 109, we can't prove which was stronger, and in any case the difference was probably not that great.
But we have been shown two different approaches to corecting the reported problem. The Luftwaffe reduced diving speed limitations, which would not have improved pilot confidence in the plane. A mistake IMO.
The RAF found fault in a technical glitch, (arguably at squadron level) which was easily solved. So... 'problem solved', 'carry on lads', 'nothing to worry about!'.
Consequently we have a perception, that is still evident to this day judging by this polls results, that the Spitfire wing was stronger. That's a huge phsycological advantage for the pilot of the Spitfire.
On the subject of use of 100 octane fuel, interesting as it is academically, IF the RAF was using primarily 87 octane during BoB (which I do not believe was the case), and the use of 100 octane was not a significant contributor to winning the battle, then what was?
109 pundits have argued that the Hurricane and Spitfire did not have a turn advantage.
They argue that RAF fighters did not have a performance advantage from use of higher octane fuel.
They argue that 109 pilots were more experienced and better trained.
They argue that the 109 gun system was superior.
They argue that Hurricane and Spitfire fuel tanks were more vulnerable to fire.
They argue that accidents due to landing gear were no different for the 109 than the Spitfire.
109s were easier to produce, easier to repair, had fuel injection instead of carburators, cannon vs mgs, used better tactics, enjoyed numerical superiority, etc, etc, etc.
This plane was completely successful against every nation and plane it went up against (including the USSR in 1941), as well as Hurricanes in France.
Yet when they went up against Spitfires during BoB, they were ultimately unsuccessful.
The old Spitty must have been able to do something better.
Njaco
The Pop-Tart Whisperer
Claide, that post has done nothing to further any knowledge whatsoever about this discussion and only serves to incite even more. Any more and thats it.
- Thread starter
- #112
claidemore
Senior Airman
I thought the first half of my previous post offerred some insight and interpretation on the thread and poll.
I will admit that the second half was simply my opinion on a touchy subject.
I have PM'd the admins and mods as to my feelings on the matter.
I will admit that the second half was simply my opinion on a touchy subject.
I have PM'd the admins and mods as to my feelings on the matter.
Kurfürst
Staff Sergeant
I see no need for a retraction, even less an apology, since I have already made my position clear above which you quoted, and its still valid. I have made clear what I posted, and when. If you are incapable of grasping that, then it is your problem.
You are on my ignore list until you publicly apologize for the above accusations of forgery.
evangilder
"Shooter"
This thread is now officially closed. The bickering back and forth is ridiculous and we have been more than patient with all of you on this.
I know 8 years that act more mature...
- Status
