109 article (from www.virtualpilots.fi)

[Grendel]

Originally posted by gripen

Most of the text is actually authors opinions about pilots opinions or authors opinions about the data; everything which favors the Bf 109 is taken without doubt (like unknown internet sources) and everything which does not favor the Bf 109 is supposed to be doubtfull.

Shortly, the article creates more myths than breaks them.

gripen

Mmm lets see

Pilots quotes: 230 kb
"Mythbusting": 48 kb
Technical: 31 kb

So there are 230 kb of pilot quotes versus total of 81 kb of other content, so it seems there is about 2,8 times more of actual pilots commentary than anything else. Mmm?

[Grendel]

Yes, they clollected alot of information. Ok. Much of that information is already on the internet. Cut and paste and add some comments. Wow.

Oh, btw. I'd like to clarify that most of the content in that article, the actual content - pilot quotes - are from my own interviews, that were not available on the internet before *I* put them there. And before that there was of course the interview process, transscribing, editing, checking, publishing the Finnish language article and then translating it to English. Why my own stuff? Because it was good place to start, I own the copyrights and I knew there is a lot of good stuff, from all angres, that people would be interested at.

Most of the other quotes are from books, and again first translated into English.

Actually only small part of those quotes are from other internet sources than my own. 10% or less.

That "cut and paste and add comments" took roughly one year before the first version of the article was published. If we add the original work I did with the interviews, it is result from some six years of work. So thanks a lot for your laudation.

[StarOfAfrica2]

That definitely makes it different.  Still, I could have worded it better, you are right.  The way I put it sounds very disparaging to the work you put out, regardless of whether it was yours or not.  I apologize for that.

My observations still stand though.  Of course, thats all they are.  Observations.  If you are happy with what you have, so be it.  It's your work.

[gripen]

Originally posted by Grendel

So there are 230 kb of pilot quotes versus total of 81 kb of other content, so it seems there is about 2,8 times more of actual pilots commentary than anything else. Mmm?

Ah, my mistake, I was reading just technical part and did not realize amount of stuff in the first part. My apologies.

Originally posted by Grendel

And yes, reader is responsible on what he sees, especially on the quotes themselves.

Well, that might be true in the Savo and possibly in the finnish computer-magazines but in the rest of the Finland (and in rest of the world) the (signed) authors are responsible, specially on the parts they have created. I understand that you are not the writer of the tehcnical section but that's the part I am talking about. I have nothing to complain about the pilots comments.

Originally posted by Grendel

Oh, btw. People tend to whine and ***** but when I've offered them the chance to add or edit the article, they've always turned their tails and ran off. Oh, they'd need to WORK and make a sensible contribution - oh noes. Whining is funnier and takes less time ;-)

Eh... In the normal world it's up to authors (not readers) to check up the facts and prove the arguments, specially if the source is something like "unconfirmed internet source".

But let's check out couple parts, somewhere in the article is following text:


"**kaartotappelussa vedetään ekana vähän ylitiukkaan, jolloin solat aukeaa, sen jälkeen tuupataan kaasua lisää ja vedetään tiukkaan solat auki. Näin saadaan sairaan tiukka kaarto (Spitiä tiukempi). Enkelsmanni testipilotit ei osannu kikkoja ja päätyi oletukseen, että 109 on Spitiä kankeampi.

I wonder what is this; it's not marked as pilot's comment. Is it a fact or myth?

I'd like to ask if you (any of the authors) has actually seen the RAE report on the Bf 109E? It's easily available from British library.

Another part is the high speed handling, the article claims:

"The Me 109 on the other hand was completely re-designed with the Friedrich, with new wings, radically different radiators, and a completely new tail section. The 109K4 had numerous improvements over the G series. For example high speed handling was remarkably enhanced in the G models and the aeleron tabs of K models again greatly enhanced roll rate in high speeds."

I have studied Bf 109G and it's developement quite thoroughly and AFAIK the tall tail is the only commonly seen (a bit) handling related improvement from F to K, there is some variation in elevator movements but nothing "remarkable".

gripen

[MiloMorai]

Gripen, you make it sound (from the article) that all K-4s had aileron Flettners when in fact only about 200 of the 1700 K-4s produced did so and it appears that these were locked.

Another part is the high speed handling, the article claims:

"The Me 109 on the other hand was completely re-designed with the Friedrich, with new wings, radically different radiators, and a completely new tail section. The 109K4 had numerous improvements over the G series. For example high speed handling was remarkably enhanced in the G models and the aeleron tabs of K models again greatly enhanced roll rate in high speeds."

It is also in conflict with what Beauvais said.

"One was designed by Blohm & Voss, adding a Flettner trim tab which resulted in a reduction of control forces: however, performance was not as smooth and effectiveness had not improved at all"

[Grendel]

Originally posted by gripen

"**kaartotappelussa vedetään ekana vähän ylitiukkaan, jolloin solat aukeaa, sen jälkeen tuupataan kaasua lisää ja vedetään tiukkaan solat auki. Näin saadaan sairaan tiukka kaarto (Spitiä tiukempi). Enkelsmanni testipilotit ei osannu kikkoja ja päätyi oletukseen, että 109 on Spitiä kankeampi.

I wonder what is this; it's not marked as pilot's comment. Is it a fact or myth?

Because it is in Finnish it is my own note about a subject I had faint recollection, but haven't found a source yet. Hadn't actually noticed that it still remains, better remove it

"The Me 109 on the other hand was completely re-designed with the Friedrich, with new wings, radically different radiators, and a completely new tail section. The 109K4 had numerous improvements over the G series. For example high speed handling was remarkably enhanced in the G models and the aeleron tabs of K models again greatly enhanced roll rate in high speeds."

I have studied Bf 109G and it's developement quite thoroughly and AFAIK the tall tail is the only commonly seen (a bit) handling related improvement from F to K, there is some variation in elevator movements but nothing "remarkable".

Ops, I have actually edited K-4 related stuff in the article but had missed that one. That is in error I admit. (I'd searched with "K-4" not "K4" and missed that one)

[Charge]

"Is it a fact or myth?"

Gripen, you gave the impression that you know the technical stuff so tell us whether or not this is even possible, and why -as you have already distiguished yourself by participating in aerodynamical discussions?

The question is: Can 109 turn inside the Spitfire in any state of flight envelope?

We know the answer for sustained turn already. It can't. It was calculated and found inferior in sustained 3G turn.

-C+

[gripen]

Originally posted by Grendel
Because it is in Finnish it is my own note about a subject I had faint recollection, but haven't found a source yet.

I can help you a bit: Go to British library:

-> Services for researchers
-> Search our catalogue
-> Integrated catalogue
-> Search integrated catalogue
-> Search for: messerschmitt handling

You will got one result, then just order it (-> Request) and when it arrives please check out if the test pilots in the RAE did use the slots in the turning tests. The report also  gives details on RAE Clmax tests questioned elsewhere in your article.

Originally posted by Grendel
Ops, I have actually edited K-4 related stuff in the article but had missed that one. That is in error I admit. (I'd searched with "K-4" not "K4" and missed that one)

That's a good start, couple questions more:

What was redesigned in the K in addition to tailwheel, some fairings, cockpit arrangement and location of some equipment?

Why British tests on the Bf 109 are questioned throughout your article and the German tests are taken without doubt? As an example check performance claimed for Bf 109G by germans from latest SILH (Raunio's article serie).

Originally posted by Charge
Gripen, you gave the impression that you know the technical stuff so tell us whether or not this is even possible, and why

I have a RAE report on Bf 109E in front of me and it directly explains how the slots behaved during the tests and if those were out during the turning tests. But I'm just an "unconfirmed internet source" so it's better that Mr. Grendel & Co just obtains the doc and checks the facts out themselves.

Generally I wonder how someone can call a report "practically pure fantasy and filled with errors and disinformation" if he has actually not seen the report.

gripen

[FalconSix]

Originally posted by Charge
The question is: Can 109 turn inside the Spitfire in any state of flight envelope?

Of course. Both planes are close enough that the pilot is the determining factor.

Originally posted by Charge
We know the answer for sustained turn already. It can't. It was calculated and found inferior in sustained 3G turn.

Calculated, yes. I'd rather trust the pilots than somebody's numbers on a piece of paper. 109 pilots have stated they had little difficulty outturning the Spitfire, and pilots like Mark Hanna who flew both says they are remarkably similar in maneuverability.

[BlauK]

gripen,
IMO, it is a real pity if you rather opt to dispise the attempt (that web page) than to be helpful, especially since you seem to have helpful resources and knowledge.

[Grendel]

Originally posted by gripen
Why British tests on the Bf 109 are questioned throughout your article and the German tests are taken without doubt? As an example check performance claimed for Bf 109G by germans from latest SILH (Raunio's article serie).

Because the reasons explained in the article. The British tests are not accurate.

Of course, if someone can rewrite that techbit and show they are, then he can. I'm not touching it myself, since I lack the technical knowledge. But so far, nobody has claimed that those bits about the tests are incorrect, so they stand as they are.

If you read the introduction on the article you have seen how help and contributions/error correction is asked. If you have such good sources just boot your word processor and contribute to the article. Otherwise you're just steaming uselessly, instead actually contributing. But well, it is easier to whine in BBS than actually do something, I understand.

Eh... In the normal world it's up to authors (not readers) to check up the facts and prove the arguments, specially if the source is something like "unconfirmed internet source".

I don't intend to spend my free time day after day with workign on one article, looking for background material, writing it up, translating it etc on a subject that I'm personally not even that interested.  The pilot quotes were the important thing, rest came as extra and that's it.  It is not a serious publication, and I don't intend to waste more time on stuff I've already done once, except if I find some time and motivation during autumm I'll add more pilot quotes. Others are welcome to contribute if they want. Currently I'm doing little updating to it, thanks to this thread, but next I'll concentrate on finishign the interview of the 94 years old AF mechanic, who started his Air Force career on 1932. Getting it ready is right now more important than spending 20 hours adding to the myths article.

But if someone thinks there is something wrong, feel free to send corrections through the "Contribute" button on the article. Preferably rewrites of the whole incorrect bits than "that's not right, it's like this".

Preferably I'd like to get more pilot quotes from various air forces, though, thanks

[gripen]

Originally posted by BlauK
gripen,
IMO, it is a real pity if you rather opt to dispise the attempt (that web page) than to be helpful, especially since you seem to have helpful resources and knowledge.

Actually I really respect the attempt to collect pilot's memories and that is the best part of that web page. It is a real pity that the authors themselves dispise the attempt by adding disinformation and speculation refusing to to check the facts from the primary sources.

Originally posted by Grendel
Of course, if someone can rewrite that techbit and show they are, then he can. I'm not touching it myself, since I lack the technical knowledge. But so far, nobody has claimed that those bits about the tests are incorrect, so they stand as they are.

It's your own choice; the source is available, it's up to you to check it out and rewrite your own article.

Originally posted by Grendel
I don't intend to spend my free time day after day with workign on one article, looking for background material, writing it up, translating it etc on a subject that I'm personally not even that interested. The pilot quotes were the important thing, rest came as extra and that's it. It is not a serious publication, and I don't intend to waste more time on stuff I've already done once, except if I find some time and motivation during autumm I'll add more pilot quotes.

Have you ever consider a possibility to leave the "rest" out of article if you have no resources to check the facts? Basicly you create myths by refusing to check the background material.

gripen

[Charge]

"But I'm just an "unconfirmed internet source" so it's better that Mr. Grendel & Co just obtains the doc and checks the facts out themselves."

Grendel did U piss in his boot? Somebody did and it is not me...

"It is a real pity that the authors themselves dispise the attempt by adding disinformation and speculation refusing to check the facts from the primary sources."

What's that? PRO docs? Facts? Is NACA facts? Why they usually have different information then? Facts don't change. Eg. death is a fact, performance of an aircraft isn't.

"pilots like Mark Hanna who flew both says they are remarkably similar in maneuverability."

IIRC the RAE documents with their f a c t s in PRO docs disgree strongly with Mark Hanna.



-C+

[Grendel]

Originally posted by gripen
It is a real pity that the authors themselves dispise the attempt by adding disinformation and speculation refusing to to check the facts from the primary sources.

As said, so far nothing has been shown to be incorrect in the Parts II and III, except some minor errors that I've corrected. If someone knows better he can press that contribute button on the article to send corrections. As also said, I have right now higher priorities than going through "primary materials" on subject I am not even interested (technical, flight tests) on personal level. My interest lies at people, not machines and tech is responsibility of others.

As said, the tech bits on the article have been primarily written by others and I have no interest on going through countless technical papers or test flight reports. I prefer to use my limited available time to work on new materials, veteran interviews that bring completely new information available that has never been previously published. Some love tech papers though and they are welcome to contribute to the 109 article.

[gripen]

Originally posted by Charge
What's that? PRO docs? Facts? Is NACA facts? Why they usually have different information then? Facts don't change. Eg. death is a fact, performance of an aircraft isn't.

It's quite obivious that RAE report on their tests on the Bf 109E is the best source on these tests, there is no challenging source. If some one wants to claim something about these tests, he/she should at least read the report first.

Originally posted by Grendel
As said, so far nothing has been shown to be incorrect in the Parts II and III, except some minor errors that I've corrected.

As an example your claims and speculations on slots in RAE Bf 109E tests are incorrect and can be easily checked from the original document. There are plenty of other examples but again it's your responsibility to find and correct them.

Lack of disprove does not prove your arguments facts. You are claiming "facts" starting from the headlines so the content should be that; the standard for the material is your own choice. Basicly you should leave evrything else out except the facts.

Originally posted by Grendel
If someone knows better he can press that contribute button on the article to send corrections.

This is a very strange attitude specially from professional journalist; it's not up to reader prove or disprove your arguments. Basicly you are asking readers to do your work.

Originally posted by Grendel
As said, the tech bits on the article have been primarily written by others and I have no interest on going through countless technical papers or test flight reports. I prefer to use my limited available time to work on new materials, veteran interviews that bring completely new information available that has never been previously published.

I honestly agree. Maybe you should separate pilots comments from the other stuff.

gripen