Author Topic: Spit vs. Messer : Design vs. Design (Read 31615 times)

KurfÃ¼rst · « **Reply #570 on:** January 27, 2005, 11:22:33 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by Angus
Oh, guess what.
Was looking at BoB statistics and some more this morning.
I stumbled across two items which I am sure Izzy's gonna love.
1. LW losses in may and June 1940 were 1100 aircraft.

[/b]

Known for ages.. Groehler gives it very accurately. The French put up a much better fight than you`d think. You basically listed what was lost to the French, Belgian, Holland air force, and even more so, anti aircraft guns, ship AA over dunkirk etc..

This is from the official R.A.F. website :

18 Jun 1940 - The remnants of the RAF Hurricane squadrons in France evacuate their bases, having provided cover for the final Allied retreat from France; the last to leave are Nos. 1 and 73 Sqns, which had been the first to arrive in 1939. The fighting in France cost the RAF a total of 1,029 aircraft and over 1,500 personnel.

Plus the Armee d`Air, and benelux airforces completely wiped out.. I guess Angie as usual got tunnel vision again, when he realized the Germans DID loose aircraft in battles, like everybody else. Just far less...

KurfÃ¼rst · « **Reply #571 on:** January 27, 2005, 11:34:49 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by Angus

FYI, the total results of that day, based on loss records mind you, were LW bombers 35 with several damaged,LW total 55, while RAF stood at 28.
Date was 14 Sep 1940
Source: Christopher Shore's DUEL FOR THE SKY, ten cruicial air battles of WW2, Page 34 and 52

That`s funny, because compared you your claim of 55 bombers 'lost', the RAF itself claimed 11 109s, a SINGLE Do17, two Ju88s and a Heinkel.. plus 3 probables, and 12 damaged on the 14th September 1940... directly from the RAF`s official daily reports of that time.

British losses amount 12 fighters shot down, four pilots KIA.

Now I have seen vast exxegerations, but never that they would claim far less than what was actually shot down. Which makes your story suspicious, to say at least.

KurfÃ¼rst · « **Reply #572 on:** January 27, 2005, 11:42:11 AM »

Nice 'roomy' Spitty cocpit there :

Looking at the picture, I always think the legroom was optimized for Douglas Bader.

Angus · « **Reply #573 on:** January 27, 2005, 12:12:00 PM »

I know that the French campaign was a disaster for the RAF, what I hadn't known was how many aircraft the LW had lost.

Those claim numbers of yours are a bit baffling, I have the RAF pilot claims as well, which are of course much higher.
This is of course not a Story, the source is listed, and Shores is quite reliable.
edit: found the bug. it's the 15th not the 14th.
As for your cockpit picture, thank you very much for a nice picture.
I have a better one myself, which I took personally BTW.

You'll say next time that an inch is smaller than a cm

Karnak · « **Reply #574 on:** January 27, 2005, 12:17:22 PM »

Ok, I'll break my rule.

Barbi, has anybody anywhere ever described the Spitfire's cockpit as "roomy"?

I've certainly never seen it described that way. I've read amusing comments by American pilots who flew Spit IXs and were re-equiped with P-47s. Things like "To take evasives in a Spitfire you manuvered the plane, to take evasives in a P-47 you got up and ran around the cockpit."

I've read comments from RAF pilots describing the Spitfire as a plane you wore.

Never, anywhere have I ever seen anybody, then or now, describe the Spitfire's cockpit as "roomy", other than you in your creation of strawman arguments. A strawman argument is one where one side says something like "The Spitfire's cockpit was not as cramped as the Bf109's cockpit." In order to seemingly refute that the other side makes a counter argument like " The Spitfire's cockpit was not roomy, just look at these pictures." The problem is, nobody ever claimed that the Spitfire's cockpit was roomy so you are countering an argument that was never presented and making statements that cannot be contested as they are true, they just have nothing to do with what you are contesting. That is a false method of debate.

Angus · « **Reply #575 on:** January 27, 2005, 01:26:30 PM »

He also claims that a P51 cockpit was cramped.

Compared to the Spitfire cockpit, it was as one described,a Saloon

MiloMorai · « **Reply #576 on:** January 27, 2005, 01:51:13 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Angus
He also claims that a P51 cockpit was cramped.

Compared to the Spitfire cockpit, it was as one described,a Saloon

Not only that Angus but Barbi, and his bud Huckles, claimed that the view to the rear in the 109 was as good, or better, than in any of the Allied 'bubble' canopy a/c. Don't fall out of your chair laughing at that claim.

KurfÃ¼rst · « **Reply #577 on:** January 28, 2005, 07:34:37 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by Karnak

Barbi, has anybody anywhere ever described the Spitfire's cockpit as "roomy"?

[/B]

Well you only have to read Angie`s continous rantings about the 'roomy' Spitfire cocpit in this very thread. He cannot accept it was not. OR just read guppy, the milomoron... ie. Guppy : "And yes the Spit cockpit is fairly roomy."etc.

You shouldn`t blame me for some Spitfire zealots having their blankers on when it comes to their 'flawless' favourte bird. You shouldn`t cry 'strawman arguement', if you are too blind to see how biased the Spitfire crowd is.

And as for the P-51, I have no idea if it was cramped or not. The USN says this on this subject :

Now, according the Angie, the 51`s cocpit "compared to the Spitfire cockpit, it was as one described,a Saloon".

Karnak · « **Reply #578 on:** January 28, 2005, 10:12:56 AM »

Barbi,

I've not read the entire thread. As I said, I've never seen anybody claim the Spitfire's cockpit was roomy. If Angus did, he's wrong. The Spitfire's cockpit is known to be one of the tighter fitting WWII fighter cockpits.

That document is about the P-51B, without the Malcolm Hood no doubt. Most people when refering to the P-51 assume the P-51D is the version being discussed.

MiloMorai · « **Reply #579 on:** January 28, 2005, 10:35:54 AM »

Karnak, it is all relative.

At the bottom for roominess is the 109 with the Spitfire somewhat better and the P-51 even better.

If Barbi lost his horse blinders, he would not have tunnel vision and see that who he claims are 'Spitfire zealots' are very far from being zealots. The only zealot in this thread is the one and only (thank God) Anglo hating Barbi.

One cannot have a rational, intelligent discussion with a zealot, as you well know.

Guppy35 · « **Reply #580 on:** January 28, 2005, 10:57:19 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by Karnak
Barbi,

I've not read the entire thread. As I said, I've never seen anybody claim the Spitfire's cockpit was roomy. If Angus did, he's wrong. The Spitfire's cockpit is known to be one of the tighter fitting WWII fighter cockpits.

That document is about the P-51B, without the Malcolm Hood no doubt. Most people when refering to the P-51 assume the P-51D is the version being discussed.

The only one to mention the Spit cockpit as roomy was former LW 109 pilot and ace Ekkehard Bob. I shared that comment in a post regarding a show on TV I saw comparing the Spit to the 109. Bob was sitting in the cockpit of a restored Spitfire V as he made the comment.

Having sat in the cockpit of a Spitfire II myself, I can tell you it was not cramped. If felt comfortable to me. That being said, I could see why Spitfire pilots talked about 'putting on' the aircraft.

It is not as big as a P51D, having sat in one of those too.

Dan/Slack

KurfÃ¼rst · « **Reply #581 on:** January 28, 2005, 11:05:58 AM »

Looks like we are heading for a more rational discussion.

Here`s what former 109 aces Franz Stiegler has to say :

"How did the cockpit feel in the 109?

The cockpit was small, but one got used to it after a while. In the end it felt comfortable since you felt like part of the plane. The spitfire's cockpit did not feel that much roomier to him either. The 262 cockpit however was larger in comparison. It also had a long flight stick, giving the pilot lots of leverage in flight. "

On P-51 he did not commented.

MiloMorai · « **Reply #582 on:** January 28, 2005, 01:13:02 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Kurfürst

Here`s what former 109 aces Franz Stiegler has to say :

"How did the cockpit feel in the 109?

The cockpit was small, but one got used to it after a while. In the end it felt comfortable since you felt like part of the plane. The spitfire's cockpit did not feel that much roomier to him either.

Angus, a Red Letter day. Mark it on the calender for Barbi just made a post saying the Spitfire cockpit was larger than that of the 109s.

Angus · « **Reply #583 on:** January 28, 2005, 06:33:58 PM »

Well, I do not remember saying it was roomy.
But it had more space.

I remember having a haggle whether the P51 cockpit was roomier or not, - now that's like saying that an inch is bigger than a cenimeter basically.

Oh, hope Izzy doesn't confuse his spouse with inches and centimetres

okok...this was under the belt

KurfÃ¼rst · « **Reply #584 on:** January 29, 2005, 04:59:39 AM »

Angus is very concerned about lenght measurements around now.

Your woman said something ?