109 article (from www.virtualpilots.fi)

[1K3]

INteresting article...

Messerschmitt 109 - myths, facts and the view from the cockpit

http://www.virtualpilots.fi/feature/articles/109myths/




On 1 to 5 scale, how would you rate this article?
(pls read the whole article 1st before rating and commenting)

[pasoleati]

If 1 means bad and 5 means excellent I rate it as 1. No doubt, authors started with good intentions, but they executed their idea badly. But perhaps, as a generel note, draft dodging and military history donīt make friends easily.

[hogenbor]

I agree

Edit: And I even like 109's

[StarOfAfrica2]

1.5 just because they tried.  Not very hard,  but they tried.

[Charge]

4

Write a better one if you can.

-C+

[TimRas]

Obviously the experience and opinions of the fighter pilots who put their life on the line flying real 109's in combat pales in comparison with computer nerds who know it better...

[hogenbor]

I'll never implied I know it better. The article is too fragmented and a bit biased.

[Charge]

"a bit biased"

I agree to some degree, but then again the writer probably tries to write a strong article which acts as a counter force to all the bad propaganda on 109 he has read from many forums during the years.

I think it's good that there is an article where all those things are listed so anyone interested can also see the opinions of people who actually flew them (109s) and not just of those who shot them down.

-C+

[pasoleati]

Before somebody jumps the gun about the draft dodging comment Iīd recommend reading the article from Turun Sanomat posted on their (virtualpilots) site.

One serious problem with the article itself is that very great emphasis is laid on memories of very old pilots. If you read the transcripts of various interviews they have conducted, some of the crucial questions are very "leading the witness".  Furthermore, apart from Karhila the pilots they interviewed (because the "big guns" are no longer with us) are mostly "also rans", folks that didnīt have really extensive combat experience.

Perhaps a more authoritative approach would have been examining wartime combat reports to see how the pilots them evaluated their kites. But that means work, work and work.

[Charge]

"Perhaps a more authoritative approach would have been examining wartime combat reports to see how the pilots them evaluated their kites. But that means work, work and work."

I'm sure everybody would be delighted to read more professional text as JK has been doing journalist work for only what? 15 years? I would like to see more articles written of this subject by anybody who has more time at his disposal and better abilities as a reporter/writer or access to combat records. (Considering how much work JK has ongoing I was surprised that he had bothered to do even that much. But some of the text may be written by Mikkolainen IIRC.)

I agree that some of the questions do put words in the mouths of interviewed but OTOH they could also have said simpy "no" if something didn't sound like the way they remembered things to be. The slats are a good example. Rall didn't like them. (200+ kills)
Many Finnish pilots liked them and thought they were very handy -and they too survived the war(!?).
Go figure...

-C+

PS. I tend to trust opinions of anybody who has been in combat in 109 whether they had 0 kills or 94. Of course it has to be kept in mind that they are mostly not aeroengineers but neither are we, even if we may have more detailed technical knowledge of the subject than they...

[Seeker]

Originally posted by pasoleati
Before somebody jumps the gun about the draft dodging comment Iīd recommend reading the article from Turun Sanomat posted on their (virtualpilots) site.

One serious problem with the article itself is that very great emphasis is laid on memories of very old pilots. If you read the transcripts of various interviews they have conducted, some of the crucial questions are very "leading the witness".  Furthermore, apart from Karhila the pilots they interviewed (because the "big guns" are no longer with us) are mostly "also rans", folks that didnīt have really extensive combat experience.

Perhaps a more authoritative approach would have been examining wartime combat reports to see how the pilots them evaluated their kites. But that means work, work and work.

All very valid points; but then again this is the Internet; not a serious historical work.

Nonetheless; it is an historical document; and deserves praise merely for that alone.

[BUG_EAF322]

They did excellent work.
But its obviously very 1 sided.

109's only interests me as target so i readed it very quick it was to much.

still their devoted efford is a good contribute.

but remember u can do this for any plane and make it look good.

Again AH2 109's are very capable fighters.
and some really fly it like a agile beast.

[FalconSix]

The article is trying to debunk the multitude of myths and falsities surrounding the 109 that has been perpetuated by authors since WWII, and it does a pretty good job of it. LW pilots in various interviews have already debunked most if not all of those myths, but this is so far the best attempt at gathering available info and presenting it in one document.

[Xjazz]

Originally posted by FalconSix
The article is trying to debunk the multitude of myths and falsities surrounding the 109 that has been perpetuated by authors since WWII, and it does a pretty good job of it. LW pilots in various interviews have already debunked most if not all of those myths, but this is so far the best attempt at gathering available info and presenting it in one document.

Well said

[Karnak]

The article was contradictory.  It seemed to be comprised of a bunch of different quotes and left trying to figure out which was accurate to the reader.