Spitfire XIV vs Me 109G/K

[Juha]

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/avi...ra-8339-7.html (P-51D "Mustang" vs. Fw-190 "Dora")
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]

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..

[Juha]

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.

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

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.

[Kurfürst]

Originally Posted by Juha

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.

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.

Reason to my message was your continual Mike bashing.

People have the right to know the truth about the tricks in those articles.
Don't you agree?

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.

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.

And after all there is in Your site the German test which compared Bf 109E and Bf 110C with Spitfire, Hurricane and Hawk 75.

Is this a crime or what...?

At least earlier without explanation that at least the British fighters were not in same conditions than those met by Germans during the BoB.

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.

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.

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.

[drgondog]

Originally Posted by Kurfürst

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.