FLYBOYJ
"THE GREAT GAZOO"
Never heard too much about the Wildcat being hard to taxi, takeoff or land. Eric knows piltos who currently fly an FM2, maybe we can get some current info on this aircraft.
The Bf 109 aka ME-109 landing gear myth research thread.
- Thread starter Lighthunmust
- Start date
Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
Shortround6
Major General
Just going by what is in "America's Hundred Thousand" Page 483.
I am sure a lot of these planes had their own idiosyncrasies, which to a pilot versed in them, are not major problems.
I am sure a lot of these planes had their own idiosyncrasies, which to a pilot versed in them, are not major problems.
Glider
Captain
I know the RAF undertook some extra testing of the P40's landing due to rumours they had heard from the USA about how difficult they could be to land. They found the rumours totally without foundation.
renrich
Chief Master Sergeant
Bill Leonard described his F4F anti ground loop technique. He was commanding, I think, some F4Fs flying from Henderson Field. Based on what he said and Dean's book the F4F was a bit of a problem on field landings but well suited to carrier ops.
bobbysocks
Chief Master Sergeant
To be fair, there's alot of variability involved so making conclusions off a few given data examples can be a dangerous thing. If this thread....which has morphed mysteriouslyfrom 109 landing gear issues into who had the better airforce, has proven one thing, its that data can be used to support just about any argument.
There have been alot of incidents where a small outnumbered force of fighters has come away with a positive kill ratio, the Germans made an artform of it over North Africa using 2 plane Rottes. At the same time however, bringing more planes to a tactical battle can and sometimes does have an impact, if other variables play out right and the pilots can maximize their assets and get shots in and overwhelm the oppositiion.
As for small casualties.....small losses are the norm. Excessive casualties are exceptions. The major factor i singled out that increased the average kill rate per skirmish was not numbers but the firepower of the planes. This is especially evident in my opinion from reading the day to day accounts from Shores 2nd TAF book. The cannon armed and .50cal armed fighters doubled the average kill rate from 1-2 planes to 3-5 in many cases. That seems like not alot but over time, it adds up...esp if one factors in wounded and killed pilots. Therein lay the demise of both the Japanese and German airforces.
trust me i understand that. basically THAT was my point. Drgondog explained it all very well. to say you had 600 fighters didnt mean that the LW encountered every one of those 600 planes. some escorts may ( and probably ) didnt see any action at all. those LW fighters may have actually had a short instance of local air superiority...by that i mean they may have been able to attack a box or section that had absolutely no fighter support. of course that would have changed as escorts rushed to that area. also you have to remember the LW tactics. they didnt stay in one place too long....saddle up behind a b17 and blast away as long as they were on the boxes or formation. that would have put them in the sites of the other bomber gunners. they came in, made their run, dove off, regrouped away from the bombers and did it all over again. long and short to just quote numbers gives a false impression of reality.
as for the P40 being hard to land. it couldnt have been too bad because it was the advanced trainer for fighter pilots ( later on 43ish thru 45). i have heard of more being lost in the florida swamps that landing accidents. ( as a matter of fact there are pieces of 3 p40s that were pulled from the swamps on ebay). it the last plane they flew in training before entering combat groups and where most of their gunnery skills were practiced. from there they get hours in the particular fighter they were assigned to overseas with their assigned group. i do know one of the tricks they liked to pull in the P40 ...which came from a well known ace....was to hit the retract for the gear while going down the runway. the weight of the plane would keep the gear down but once sufficient pressure was released the gear would retract....rather quickly. this practice was forbidden....but cadets still did it from time to time.
Last edited:
fastmongrel
1st Sergeant
bobbysocks
Chief Master Sergeant
i am sure it lead to a lot of 'tipped" props and scraped tails.
i did find what i was looking for concerning the LW pilots talking about landing ( and general handling) the 109. BUT they really dont point to the gear being the culprit...mainly inexperience.
From: Heinz Knoke, "I Flew for the Fuhrer", Corgi Books 1967.
It is estimated that 10% of 109s were destroyed in landing and take-off accidents, as well as many pilots, but despite its vices it was the favoured mount of most of the major aces of the Luftwaffe.
"The JG26 War Diary: Volume 2 1943-5", P.290
"12th October 1940: I had hoped for a posting to an operational unit this month. Unfortunately, training is far behind schedule because of the bad autumn weather.
We have a rough time in training here also. There have been one or two fatal accidents every week for the past six week in our Course alone. Today Sergeant Schmidt crashed and was killed. He was one of our section of five.
We have spent several days on theoretical conversion training before flying the Messerschmitt 109, which is difficult to handle and dangerous at first. We can now go through every movement in our sleep.
This morning we brought out the first 109 and were ready to fly. Sergeant Schmidt was chosen as the first of us, by drawing lots. He took off without difficulty, which was something, as the aircraft will only too readily crash on take-off if one is not careful. A premature attempt to climb will cause it to whip over into a spin, swiftly and surely. I have seen that happen hundreds of times and it frequently means the death of the pilot.
Schmidt came in to land after making one circuit; but he misjudged the speed, which was higher than that to which he was accustomed, and so he overshot the runway. He came round again and the same thing happened. He began to worry; for Sergeant Schmidt had obviously lost his nerve. He was coming in and making a final turn before flattening out to touch down, when the aircraft suddenly stalled because of insufficient speed and spun out of control, crashing into the ground and exploding a few hundred feet short of the end of the runway. We all raced like madmen over to the scene of the crash. I was the first to arrive. Schmidt had been thrown clear and was lying several feet away from the flaming wreckage. He was screaming like an animal, covered in blood. I stooped down over the body of my comrade and saw that both legs were missing. I held his head. The scream were driving me insane. Blood poured over my hands. I have never felt so helpless in my life. The screaming finally stopped and became an even more terrible silence. Then Kuhl and the others arrived but by that time Schmidt was dead.
Major von Kornatzky ordered training to be resumed forthwith and less than an hour later the next 109 was brought out. This time it was my turn.
I went into the hangar and washed the blood off my hands. Then the mechanics tightened up my safety belt and I was taxiing off to the take-off point. My heart was madly thumping. Not even the deafening roar of the engine was loud enough to drown out of my ears the lingering screams of my comrade as he lay there dying like an animal. I was no sooner airborne than I noticed the stains on my flying-suit. They were great dark blood-stains and I was frightened. It was a horrible, paralysing fear. I could only be thankful there was no-one present to see how terrified I was.
I circled the field for several minutes and gradually recovered from the panic. At last I was sufficiently calm to come in for a landing. Everything was alright. I took off immediately and landed again. And a third time.
Tears were still in my eyes when I pushed open the canopy and removed my helmet. When I jumped down from the wing I found I could not control the shaking of my knees.
Suddenly I saw Kornatzky standing in front of me. Steely blue eyes seemed to be boring right through me.
"Were you frightened?"
"Yes, sir."
"Better get used to it if you hope to go on operations."
That really hurt. I was so ashamed I wished the ground would swallow me up.
now i will see if i can find exactly who was famous for that p 40 take off stunt...
i did find what i was looking for concerning the LW pilots talking about landing ( and general handling) the 109. BUT they really dont point to the gear being the culprit...mainly inexperience.
From: Heinz Knoke, "I Flew for the Fuhrer", Corgi Books 1967.
It is estimated that 10% of 109s were destroyed in landing and take-off accidents, as well as many pilots, but despite its vices it was the favoured mount of most of the major aces of the Luftwaffe.
"The JG26 War Diary: Volume 2 1943-5", P.290
"12th October 1940: I had hoped for a posting to an operational unit this month. Unfortunately, training is far behind schedule because of the bad autumn weather.
We have a rough time in training here also. There have been one or two fatal accidents every week for the past six week in our Course alone. Today Sergeant Schmidt crashed and was killed. He was one of our section of five.
We have spent several days on theoretical conversion training before flying the Messerschmitt 109, which is difficult to handle and dangerous at first. We can now go through every movement in our sleep.
This morning we brought out the first 109 and were ready to fly. Sergeant Schmidt was chosen as the first of us, by drawing lots. He took off without difficulty, which was something, as the aircraft will only too readily crash on take-off if one is not careful. A premature attempt to climb will cause it to whip over into a spin, swiftly and surely. I have seen that happen hundreds of times and it frequently means the death of the pilot.
Schmidt came in to land after making one circuit; but he misjudged the speed, which was higher than that to which he was accustomed, and so he overshot the runway. He came round again and the same thing happened. He began to worry; for Sergeant Schmidt had obviously lost his nerve. He was coming in and making a final turn before flattening out to touch down, when the aircraft suddenly stalled because of insufficient speed and spun out of control, crashing into the ground and exploding a few hundred feet short of the end of the runway. We all raced like madmen over to the scene of the crash. I was the first to arrive. Schmidt had been thrown clear and was lying several feet away from the flaming wreckage. He was screaming like an animal, covered in blood. I stooped down over the body of my comrade and saw that both legs were missing. I held his head. The scream were driving me insane. Blood poured over my hands. I have never felt so helpless in my life. The screaming finally stopped and became an even more terrible silence. Then Kuhl and the others arrived but by that time Schmidt was dead.
Major von Kornatzky ordered training to be resumed forthwith and less than an hour later the next 109 was brought out. This time it was my turn.
I went into the hangar and washed the blood off my hands. Then the mechanics tightened up my safety belt and I was taxiing off to the take-off point. My heart was madly thumping. Not even the deafening roar of the engine was loud enough to drown out of my ears the lingering screams of my comrade as he lay there dying like an animal. I was no sooner airborne than I noticed the stains on my flying-suit. They were great dark blood-stains and I was frightened. It was a horrible, paralysing fear. I could only be thankful there was no-one present to see how terrified I was.
I circled the field for several minutes and gradually recovered from the panic. At last I was sufficiently calm to come in for a landing. Everything was alright. I took off immediately and landed again. And a third time.
Tears were still in my eyes when I pushed open the canopy and removed my helmet. When I jumped down from the wing I found I could not control the shaking of my knees.
Suddenly I saw Kornatzky standing in front of me. Steely blue eyes seemed to be boring right through me.
"Were you frightened?"
"Yes, sir."
"Better get used to it if you hope to go on operations."
That really hurt. I was so ashamed I wished the ground would swallow me up.
now i will see if i can find exactly who was famous for that p 40 take off stunt...
Last edited:
Njaco
The Pop-Tart Whisperer
Bobby, are you sure thats from "The JG26 War Diary: Volume 2 1943-5", P.290??? If the book covers 1943-45 why would there be something about 1940? And I have Caldwell's book and can find no personal diary such as this. Maybe its still part of Heinz Knoke's diary?
michaelmaltby
Colonel
Wherever it's from - it's a great quote. Thanks.
MM
MM
bobbysocks
Chief Master Sergeant
no i cant guarentee it was from the book. I do not own it. i grabbed that quote from an online source for another project i had where the source wasnt as important. i apologize. it very well could be knoke. guess i will have to research the quote now...lol.
actually did a little reseach and found another site that quote it as being from the same book as the first quote:
Heinz Knoke, "I Flew for the Fuhrer", Corgi Books 1967.
it also lists this site:
http://www.heinzknokewebsite.com/My-Site/Main_Lilo.htm
but i am unable to pull this site up from this computer at work.
actually did a little reseach and found another site that quote it as being from the same book as the first quote:
Heinz Knoke, "I Flew for the Fuhrer", Corgi Books 1967.
it also lists this site:
http://www.heinzknokewebsite.com/My-Site/Main_Lilo.htm
but i am unable to pull this site up from this computer at work.
Last edited:
- Thread starter
- #472
Lighthunmust
Banned
It has been two months since anyone posted to this thread. The following is posted with the hope it is useful to the members, moderators, and administrators in making this thread and forum more beneficial to all.
STATISTICS:
This thread was created on 7-5-11 and received posts for 20 days until 7-25-11
This thread contains 471 posts from 42 forum members on 32 pages.
35% of the posts were made by 3 members: Parsifal, P-40K-5, and Tante Ju
36% of the posts were made by 8 members: Flyboyj, Milosh, Njaco, drgondog, Glider, Shortround 6, Juha, and Mustang nut
29% of posts were made by 31 additional members.
OPINION:
My opinion as creator of this thread is that the topic and goal of the thread can be succinctly described as: A compilation of citations of a specific claim about the landing gear of the Bf109 to create a chronology back to the first claimant, and discussion of who is making these claims and where. It is my opinion that any other discussion is off topic, irrelevant, and counterproductive to the topic and goal of the thread.
Moderators informed me any post about the Bf109 landing gear was on topic.
STATISTICS:
Number of posts that are not about the Bf109 landing gear - I don't know, I got tired of counting, categorizing, and attempting to coherently list them because there are so many of them. There are many pages of consecutive off topic posts. Several members made posts that indicate I am not the only person to notice so many off topic posts. I estimate that at least 50% of posts are not about what the moderators implied was the thread topic. It was very easy to determine that 98% of posts are not about what the thread creator believed was the topic.
OPINION:
Having at least 50% of 471 posts being off topic is very inefficient at providing information on a thread's topic. Having 98% of 471 posts off topic is a mockery of the thread creators attempt to find specific information.
After requesting help from the moderators to keep the thread on topic, I received a PM from a moderator asking me "Have you ever thought that even these so called "irrelevant" posts (which are all meaningful, interesting and pertaining to the topic) might lead around to what you are looking for?" Before creating this thread I did consider this, and more importantly I considered the following:
1. How in so many threads some members find a way to start what I call a "Bf109/Luftwaffe versus Everything Argument", and how quickly these arguments fill the thread with massive lists of data and sources of which the validity is never adequately determined or agreed upon.
2. The fact that these "Bf109/Luftwaffe versus Everything Arguments" frequently result in members losing their tempers, making hostile comments, and occasionally getting banned.
3. How a thread's parameters could be established to be so neutral that all members would stay on topic so that a "Bf109/Luftwaffe versus Everything Argument", members losing their tempers, hostile comments, and members being banned would not occur.
STATISTICS:
Number of posts that led to what the thread creator is "looking for" - 0
Number of members that made hostile comments due to an "Bf109/Luftwaffe versus Everything Argument" and were banned - 1
OPINION:
This thread became in many ways much like what P-40K-5 predicted in post #90: "....its gonna turn into a pissing match about #'s, #'s, #'s."
This thread is filled ad nauseam with the same old stuff: Bf109/Luftwaffe versus Everything, the Bf109 is the greatest thing since bread, the P-51 Mustang is better because it is the greatest thing since "sliced" bread, massive lists of data and references that cannot be agree upon, etc. None of this provided the information the thread was attempting to elicit. What happen in this thread is the classic example of a researcher failing to prevent an obfuscating mass of irrelevant information making it impossible to find the answer to a simple question.
Beginning with Post #2 made by P-40K-5 the thread began to move toward what I have described in the preceding paragraph. Having much experience with P-40K-5 doing this, my exasperation resulted in a sarcastic objection, a dry humor reference to one of P-40K-5's self-descriptive comments from another thread, and a polite thank you for future cooperation. What is ironic and unfortunate is that 428 postings later P-40K-5 was banned by a moderator after he made a hostile comment directly attributable to losing his temper in yet another "Bf109/Luftwaffe versus Everything Argument."
STATISTICS:
This thread was created on 7-5-11 and received posts for 20 days until 7-25-11
This thread contains 471 posts from 42 forum members on 32 pages.
35% of the posts were made by 3 members: Parsifal, P-40K-5, and Tante Ju
36% of the posts were made by 8 members: Flyboyj, Milosh, Njaco, drgondog, Glider, Shortround 6, Juha, and Mustang nut
29% of posts were made by 31 additional members.
OPINION:
My opinion as creator of this thread is that the topic and goal of the thread can be succinctly described as: A compilation of citations of a specific claim about the landing gear of the Bf109 to create a chronology back to the first claimant, and discussion of who is making these claims and where. It is my opinion that any other discussion is off topic, irrelevant, and counterproductive to the topic and goal of the thread.
Moderators informed me any post about the Bf109 landing gear was on topic.
STATISTICS:
Number of posts that are not about the Bf109 landing gear - I don't know, I got tired of counting, categorizing, and attempting to coherently list them because there are so many of them. There are many pages of consecutive off topic posts. Several members made posts that indicate I am not the only person to notice so many off topic posts. I estimate that at least 50% of posts are not about what the moderators implied was the thread topic. It was very easy to determine that 98% of posts are not about what the thread creator believed was the topic.
OPINION:
Having at least 50% of 471 posts being off topic is very inefficient at providing information on a thread's topic. Having 98% of 471 posts off topic is a mockery of the thread creators attempt to find specific information.
After requesting help from the moderators to keep the thread on topic, I received a PM from a moderator asking me "Have you ever thought that even these so called "irrelevant" posts (which are all meaningful, interesting and pertaining to the topic) might lead around to what you are looking for?" Before creating this thread I did consider this, and more importantly I considered the following:
1. How in so many threads some members find a way to start what I call a "Bf109/Luftwaffe versus Everything Argument", and how quickly these arguments fill the thread with massive lists of data and sources of which the validity is never adequately determined or agreed upon.
2. The fact that these "Bf109/Luftwaffe versus Everything Arguments" frequently result in members losing their tempers, making hostile comments, and occasionally getting banned.
3. How a thread's parameters could be established to be so neutral that all members would stay on topic so that a "Bf109/Luftwaffe versus Everything Argument", members losing their tempers, hostile comments, and members being banned would not occur.
STATISTICS:
Number of posts that led to what the thread creator is "looking for" - 0
Number of members that made hostile comments due to an "Bf109/Luftwaffe versus Everything Argument" and were banned - 1
OPINION:
This thread became in many ways much like what P-40K-5 predicted in post #90: "....its gonna turn into a pissing match about #'s, #'s, #'s."
This thread is filled ad nauseam with the same old stuff: Bf109/Luftwaffe versus Everything, the Bf109 is the greatest thing since bread, the P-51 Mustang is better because it is the greatest thing since "sliced" bread, massive lists of data and references that cannot be agree upon, etc. None of this provided the information the thread was attempting to elicit. What happen in this thread is the classic example of a researcher failing to prevent an obfuscating mass of irrelevant information making it impossible to find the answer to a simple question.
Beginning with Post #2 made by P-40K-5 the thread began to move toward what I have described in the preceding paragraph. Having much experience with P-40K-5 doing this, my exasperation resulted in a sarcastic objection, a dry humor reference to one of P-40K-5's self-descriptive comments from another thread, and a polite thank you for future cooperation. What is ironic and unfortunate is that 428 postings later P-40K-5 was banned by a moderator after he made a hostile comment directly attributable to losing his temper in yet another "Bf109/Luftwaffe versus Everything Argument."
- Thread starter
- #473
Lighthunmust
Banned
After several other members made postings I considered off topic and my requests that members stay on topic were ineffective; I contacted the moderators with my objection. I did this by following these instructions found in this website's "FAQ" tab:
"You will find 'Report' links in many places throughout the board. These links allow you to alert the board staff to anything which you find to be offensive, objectionable (emphasis added) or illegal."
I used the "Report" link twice. I found it objectionable that postings to the thread were off topic and would cause what eventually occurred in the thread. I was not objecting because I disagreed with members opinions, only where they were making them. My reports were simple and polite requests for help keeping the thread on topic.
The problem with this landing gear claim is it is simple, succinct, symmetrical (33% of 33,000) and sometimes perpetuated by famous and well respected individuals in the Aviation Community. Most people will accept it on face value, and are not going to take the time to consider a refutation of this claim consisting of opinions and arcane data provided by relatively non-famous individuals using alias on an internet forum. What non-famous individuals need for a refutation is a simple, succinct, and near unassailably true statement they can used the next time someone, no matter how famous, attempts to perpetuate this claim. It better have devastating logic that is easy to comprehend if you are going to refute the statements of aviation heavy weights like Captain Eric Brown test pilot and holder of the record for most Aircraft types flown, Corky Meyer the famous Grumman Aircraft test pilot and President and CEO of Grumman American, and General Johannes Steinhoff the 176 victory ace and former Chief of Staff of the post-war Luftwaffe. A statement like this:
"Mr. (insert name) is the first person to make this claim in (insert name of book/magazine), on (insert date). His conclusions leading to this statement were based on the following methodology (insert summary of methodology). Unfortunately his methodology was very flawed and his conclusions inaccurate. It is not known how much the gear design contributed to losses and may never be known. The claim that 33% of 33,000 ME109s were lost due to landing gear design is not creditable."
STATISTICS:
There were 471 posts to the thread by 42 individuals without the fame of Brown, Meyer, or Steinhoff.
Number of individuals that respect the aviation related opinions of Brown, Meyer, and Steinhoff - Millions
"You will find 'Report' links in many places throughout the board. These links allow you to alert the board staff to anything which you find to be offensive, objectionable (emphasis added) or illegal."
I used the "Report" link twice. I found it objectionable that postings to the thread were off topic and would cause what eventually occurred in the thread. I was not objecting because I disagreed with members opinions, only where they were making them. My reports were simple and polite requests for help keeping the thread on topic.
The problem with this landing gear claim is it is simple, succinct, symmetrical (33% of 33,000) and sometimes perpetuated by famous and well respected individuals in the Aviation Community. Most people will accept it on face value, and are not going to take the time to consider a refutation of this claim consisting of opinions and arcane data provided by relatively non-famous individuals using alias on an internet forum. What non-famous individuals need for a refutation is a simple, succinct, and near unassailably true statement they can used the next time someone, no matter how famous, attempts to perpetuate this claim. It better have devastating logic that is easy to comprehend if you are going to refute the statements of aviation heavy weights like Captain Eric Brown test pilot and holder of the record for most Aircraft types flown, Corky Meyer the famous Grumman Aircraft test pilot and President and CEO of Grumman American, and General Johannes Steinhoff the 176 victory ace and former Chief of Staff of the post-war Luftwaffe. A statement like this:
"Mr. (insert name) is the first person to make this claim in (insert name of book/magazine), on (insert date). His conclusions leading to this statement were based on the following methodology (insert summary of methodology). Unfortunately his methodology was very flawed and his conclusions inaccurate. It is not known how much the gear design contributed to losses and may never be known. The claim that 33% of 33,000 ME109s were lost due to landing gear design is not creditable."
STATISTICS:
There were 471 posts to the thread by 42 individuals without the fame of Brown, Meyer, or Steinhoff.
Number of individuals that respect the aviation related opinions of Brown, Meyer, and Steinhoff - Millions
- Thread starter
- #474
Lighthunmust
Banned
OPINIONS:
"Excuse me for missing that. I guess trying to read over every post here on this forum is not possible..." - DerAdlerIstGelandet in post #15
I think this is probably true of all moderators and one of the reasons why the moderators are more reactive and punitive than proactive and preventative on this forum.
"This is a forum for open discussion." - DerAdlerIstGelandet in post #44
It has always been my understanding that even an "open discussion" is enclosed by a purposeful consideration of a topic and is only open in that anyone can participate. Without this enclosure a discussion becomes purposeless conversation meandering from topic to topic. Most discussions have formally or informally recognized discussion leaders that endeavor to keep comments relevant to the topic.
"How about you let us play moderator?" - DerAdlerIstGelandet in post #34
DerAdlerIstGelandet's question implies I was usurping the authority of a moderator. I thought I was behaving as an informal discussion leader in a thread I created. I attempted to keep the thread on topic with requests for cooperation that contained clarifying explanations of the information the thread was attempting to elicit and that new threads be created to discuss what I considered off topic information. I did not issue orders, censor anyone, or make warnings; all of which are the exclusive privileges of a moderator.
I made errors in crafting the starting post of this thread. The intent and goal of the thread could have been described with better clarity and brevity. I do not think I am the first person or the last person who will make this error. My additional posts to correct this error could have been made with greater finesse in language and greater patience.
SUGGESTIONS:
1. Support my new thread so the Bf109/Luftwaffe fans and everybody else have a good chance to get that near unassailable statement I mentioned.
2. Perhaps the moderators should allow the creators of threads to act as informal discussion leaders endeavoring to get members to keep posts relevant (on topic). As long as the informal discussion leader did not engage in personal attack and political commentary this may be beneficial in reducing the incidence of moderators being reactive and punitive.
3. When a member requests help from a moderator with a thread they started, a polite reply requesting an explanation may be more beneficial to the forum than a rush to judgement and summary condemnation.
4. No individual should use insulting language that DerAdlerIstGelandet mentions in post #34 as a reason for closing a thread, and for which DerAdlerIstGelandet banned P-40K-5. Using this type of language completely subverts and contradicts point #4 found here:
http://www.ww2aircraft.net/forum/basic/few-ground-rules-new-folks-7159.html
In the "Which side would you fly for?" thread moderator Njaco wisely commented about what insults do: "You will not call other members names or insult them in such a way. When you start to attack the member, you lose all credibility in your argument". My opinion is that individuals using the type of insulting language found in posts #27, #30, and #32 from behind the barricade of a keyboard and at the safe distance of the internet do more damage to their credibility and reputation than they inflict on the person they are insulting. This is especially true when they have the punitive power to permanently silence an insulted individual who replies in an appropriate way.
5. Speaking truth to power when you know the potential consequences demonstrates you have a spine and stones.
"Excuse me for missing that. I guess trying to read over every post here on this forum is not possible..." - DerAdlerIstGelandet in post #15
I think this is probably true of all moderators and one of the reasons why the moderators are more reactive and punitive than proactive and preventative on this forum.
"This is a forum for open discussion." - DerAdlerIstGelandet in post #44
It has always been my understanding that even an "open discussion" is enclosed by a purposeful consideration of a topic and is only open in that anyone can participate. Without this enclosure a discussion becomes purposeless conversation meandering from topic to topic. Most discussions have formally or informally recognized discussion leaders that endeavor to keep comments relevant to the topic.
"How about you let us play moderator?" - DerAdlerIstGelandet in post #34
DerAdlerIstGelandet's question implies I was usurping the authority of a moderator. I thought I was behaving as an informal discussion leader in a thread I created. I attempted to keep the thread on topic with requests for cooperation that contained clarifying explanations of the information the thread was attempting to elicit and that new threads be created to discuss what I considered off topic information. I did not issue orders, censor anyone, or make warnings; all of which are the exclusive privileges of a moderator.
I made errors in crafting the starting post of this thread. The intent and goal of the thread could have been described with better clarity and brevity. I do not think I am the first person or the last person who will make this error. My additional posts to correct this error could have been made with greater finesse in language and greater patience.
SUGGESTIONS:
1. Support my new thread so the Bf109/Luftwaffe fans and everybody else have a good chance to get that near unassailable statement I mentioned.
2. Perhaps the moderators should allow the creators of threads to act as informal discussion leaders endeavoring to get members to keep posts relevant (on topic). As long as the informal discussion leader did not engage in personal attack and political commentary this may be beneficial in reducing the incidence of moderators being reactive and punitive.
3. When a member requests help from a moderator with a thread they started, a polite reply requesting an explanation may be more beneficial to the forum than a rush to judgement and summary condemnation.
4. No individual should use insulting language that DerAdlerIstGelandet mentions in post #34 as a reason for closing a thread, and for which DerAdlerIstGelandet banned P-40K-5. Using this type of language completely subverts and contradicts point #4 found here:
http://www.ww2aircraft.net/forum/basic/few-ground-rules-new-folks-7159.html
In the "Which side would you fly for?" thread moderator Njaco wisely commented about what insults do: "You will not call other members names or insult them in such a way. When you start to attack the member, you lose all credibility in your argument". My opinion is that individuals using the type of insulting language found in posts #27, #30, and #32 from behind the barricade of a keyboard and at the safe distance of the internet do more damage to their credibility and reputation than they inflict on the person they are insulting. This is especially true when they have the punitive power to permanently silence an insulted individual who replies in an appropriate way.
5. Speaking truth to power when you know the potential consequences demonstrates you have a spine and stones.
OH brother, here we go again...
Sorry but this thread was on topic. All threads will go a little off topic, but if pertains to the thread we let it continue.
That is what forums are for and about.
Sorry but this thread was on topic. All threads will go a little off topic, but if pertains to the thread we let it continue.
That is what forums are for and about.
Njaco
The Pop-Tart Whisperer
Three points I would like to make.
1. This is the internet. I would like know what the statistics are when someone Googles "pole barn' and how many RELEVANT website returns one gets? This is an OPEN forum where, while it may be distracting for some, thread topics may go off track alittle, as long as its civil. Which brings me to point number 2...
2. The "Report' Button is to report violations of the conduct and rules of the board. Insulting other member, insulting someone's service, etc. It is NOT because threads may wander at times and the thread originator is pissy.
3. And I would be very careful trying to expose supposed flaws with the Moderators or Admins. If you have a problem, use the PM feature - don't air it in public.
1. This is the internet. I would like know what the statistics are when someone Googles "pole barn' and how many RELEVANT website returns one gets? This is an OPEN forum where, while it may be distracting for some, thread topics may go off track alittle, as long as its civil. Which brings me to point number 2...
2. The "Report' Button is to report violations of the conduct and rules of the board. Insulting other member, insulting someone's service, etc. It is NOT because threads may wander at times and the thread originator is pissy.
3. And I would be very careful trying to expose supposed flaws with the Moderators or Admins. If you have a problem, use the PM feature - don't air it in public.
evangilder
"Shooter"
I have said it before, I will say it again. Pick a fight with a moderator or an administrator and you will lose. Enough of this ridiculous analysis of what posts are relevant or not. If the information is not here for you to find in the manner that you wish for, you are more than welcome to go somewhere else or start your own forum. But I will NOT sit idly by while you snipe at the people who try to keep this place as organized and civil as they can. All of the staff are volunteers, who do it for only the love of aviation.
One more snipe at ANY of the staff here, and you are history. This is you only warning.
One more snipe at ANY of the staff here, and you are history. This is you only warning.
- Thread starter
- #478
Lighthunmust
Banned
1. I know I am only a guest on the property of other people. I am making polite suggestions, not demands. I am not using the type of language directed at me in this thread. I am not exposing anything, I am politely commenting on what some members are very much aware of.
2. I understand how the "Report" button is intended to be used. Perhaps your #2 should be included in the FAQ statement to more clearly define use. I suggest deleting the word "pissy" as it is counterproductive.
3. I have already sent a polite PM to some of the moderators. I don't think it insolent to suggest in public that moderators who intend to insult members "don't air it in public".
4. I hope the moderators have as thick a skin as they expect members to have.
5. Moderators should lead by example.
If you have problems with the moderating staff, please send them a PM. Do not send that PM to other members of the forum, nor should you share PMs from moderators with other members of the forum. They are Private Messages
Enough said...
Enough said...
Matt308
Glock Perfection
Lightunmust, I see nothing good in your future on this forum.
