I quote Carson's conclusions about the stick forces of the 109 and the rudder forces being a problem. Everyone says "Ohh Carsons's an idiot and your one too for quoting him because he got the drag co-efficients wrong on the 109! Well, that maybe true but we weren't talking about the drag coefficients.
We were talking about Carson's credibility as a worthy source. Obviously, his knowledge was wrong, and you keep sticking to the argument that no matter what he got wrong, his overall conclusion is right. So who's being the more unreasonable person here?
So I quote at least 3 other sources pointing to the 109's shortcomings and stick forces. 1 is Eric Browns Enemy Test Flight, 1 is General Adolf Galland, and the other is Hauptmann Gollob's official RLM test flight between a 109F4 and a 190A2.
And in turn, the other people came up with other arguments that shortcomings and stickforce problems are not unique to the 109 - which I believe, should establish a reasonable doubt which is more than enough for anybody who could reason. The comparisons which you take so seriously, is not sufficient to brand a certain plane-type as "obsolete".
Come to think of it, you never did any comparisons at all so far.
1. You ignored the relative performance aspects which the 109 holds superior.
2. You ignored the relative deficiencies which the 109 didn't have but the "not-obsolete" planes did have.
3. All you took for as a fact is the few characteristic flaws of the 109 and refused to acknowledge such flaws were common in all planes.
4. And to top that all, in such a clearly biased attitude in actual comparison, you go so far as to call the other people "Luftwhiners" and claim it is a vain attempt for us to defend an "obsolete" plane, which you yourself never proved it being so.
So, again, who's being more unreasonable here?
Folks jump on the bandwagon and claim it's either a myth that has been blown out of proportion and Environmental factors will negate it. Why would this be blown out of proportion? Is it a plot to keep the 109 down? From taking it's rightful place in "Old Fighters" Home?? Maybe Hitech will see it and pork it for them??!!??
Your babbling now. People have come up with counter points to the problems you pick in which you have laid the basis to judge the 109 as obsolete by 1943, and you've so far not commented about them. Neither did you answer some valid questions.
Galland opinion went much farther than Gollob's. Gollob only called the stick forces and maneuverability of a 109F4 at high speeds "unacceptable". Galland states the 109 was obsolete by 1943. You quote the leader of the Luftwaffe Single engine Dayfighters making a broad generalization about a plane.
And people've already pointed out how you took out a line from a comment and warped and twisted the point. By your attitude, we could easily establish that Galland hated the Bf109E and wanted Spitfires instead, in 1940, when he had to address Goering. Which Galland himself, had to explain that people have warped his opinion to a point which he never intended. Basically, you're doing the same thing.
One that holds true give the realities the LW was under in the late war period and you find 3-4 zealots piling out of the woodwork making cases for variants that quite simply came too little too late to make an impact or are not even in the time period Galland is referring too.
The "variants", did not come too little too late. More than thousand of each types were produced by end of 1944, with still more than 5 months left for the war to end.
Also, even if we take the G-10 and the K-4 out of comparison, as you say it should be, the Gustavs between 1943 and 1944 still hold much same essential advantages against a contemporary US fighter. Which this fact, again, you fall deaf ears upon and do not address in your posts.
Then they want to point to the game and talk about how successful it is in AH. Again, it's not Europe in 1944!!
What happens in a game is not an exact reference of reality, but to a certain extent it does show how the actual fight might occur - since AH claims to use FM as realistic as the data they could gather.
An AH Bf109G-6 or a G-10, is competent enough to fight against a contemporary P-47 or a P-51. Give or take differences between reality and a game, still it reflects some important facts - such as the fact that the advantages in certain performance attributes often favors the 109 more than its competitor.
Ofcourse, like always, you refuse to acknowledge this fact and just cast it away with the argument "it don't count, because this is a game".
Then Folks want to know my definition of Obsolete. So I tell them. It may or may not be Gallands, the man is not alive to ask anymore. So then we get a dozen posts on how MY opinion is just plain wrong.
No, you got dozen posts in just exactly why you are wrong, which you've ignored time again. You're not listening.
Hey, I got the money and I bought the books and I read them. I don't make a living researching the 109.
So howcome you think you're opinion is absolutely more correct than some other people who obviously have a vast more knowledge about the 109?
So when Willey Radinger says the 109 was long in the tooth in 1944 and had a rough time with the late war allied fighters, I believe him. Much more so than I do someone like GSchloltz, Isegrim, Hohun who is simply advancing an in game agenda.
Oh I'd believe him too. But there's a big difference between "rough time" and "obsoleteness".
* You've never proved anything is obsolete.
* Your quoting things which others have never said.
* Your ignoring the points others have come up.
NO WONDER the community came up with the name "LUFTWHINER". It fits!
So howcome we're the guys suggesting you come up with actual performance comparison, and pick out just in which area the 109 is so inferior that the entire type is announced "obsolete" by 1943, and you're the guy who falls deaf ears on it?
Or how about my fun little comparison between the Corsair and the Mustang? No opinions about that either? Despite by your own definition it is more than enough to announce one of that type is "obsolete"?
Really, the "Luftwhiner" branding, in this thread at least, is nothing but a typical "Commie" outburst, friend. Too bad you haven't got Cohn and McCarthy beside you to just crush all opposition and bend reality to what you think as it should be.
You still have a lot of questions to answer. Call us Luftwhiners or whatever you want, but it still don't change the fact your arguing things without any basis.
