109 article (from www.virtualpilots.fi)

[BlauK]

Ok... this is pretty much the last comment I want to bother with.

gripen,
you sound like you were a paying customer who is dissappointed with the content of his subscription.

No-one makes any profit for anything published at the association's site. So what if grendel is a journalist by profession. That page is not his work, it is part of his hobby. That is a co-effort of people interested in the issue. Certainly they are asking the readers to help make the page better. I hope some readers will find it interesting and offer their help. You certainly have made your own position clear, and your "savo" and "computer-magazine" comments also made your personal agenda pretty obvious.

Maybe it would be better if all the stuff collected by volunteer work on the site was made viewable for the paying members only...

[FalconSix]

The RAE tests of the 109 are worthless. The brits never dared push the captured 109s to get the most out of them. I trust British tests on the 109 as much as I trust German tests on the Spit, i.e. not at all.

[Grendel]

It's quite obivious that RAE report on their tests on the Bf 109E is the best source on these tests

RAF Royal Aircraft Establishment (RAE) Farnborough handling trials,Bf.109E Wn: 1304.
...
They're actually a 1941 report from tests conducted in September of 1940 from an aircraft that was captured by the French in 1939 (see next chapter). At the time the tests were conducted in 1940, they didn't have oxygen bottles for the 109, so test could only be done at low to medium altitude...
The 109 tested is claimed to be "Me 109E-3 Werk-Nr 1304" which is documented to have been captured. However, there is some discrepency as to WerkNr 1304 actually being an Me109E-1. So what have they tested? E-1? E-3? E-4? Did they test one of the crash landed, damaged planes? So we got major confusion with the tested plane. Also, Bf 109 E-3 WNr. 1304 (RAF AE 479) was at one point crash landed, among other things, and it received a new tail section from a Bf 109 E-4 WNr. 1980. ..
Another problem is with the test itself, when compared to a Spitfire. Overall the accuracy of the test suffers from the fact that it was flown with a crash landed plane wirh a worn, several years old engine producing less power than usual...
...

Etc. Doesn't sound that trustworhy to me.

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.

 
Yup. Perfectly correct. That article is co-work from several persons and relies on others to grow better. I've said it several times in this thread.

I didn't put that article together at work or as as a professional historician or writer. And it wasn't published in a professional quality publication, and nobody has paid a single penny for it. Hence I can do it what way I want to and did it the way I did, with my own responsibility, that's it, I piss on the rest. If you have knowledge but aren't willing to share it, then I'm not interested, goodbye.

Btw I've written articles to websites, newsgroups etc, sometimes bloody drunk, I've done all kinds of things in my freetime without keeping my "professional author" coat on all the time. I can wear it when necessary, when I'm doing *serious* writing, but this 109 myths text sure ain't one of those. Case closed.

Btw2, I don't see it either like readers are forced to "do my work" since it is still a cooperative effort by many people and it is not a publication where *I* would gain any monetary benefits. If people interested on 109 history want to make the article better, they can contribute easily.  A lot of the articles on the Virtualpilots' site are cooperative efforts by many people - so is this. Together with all those contributors we've been able to create and publish materials that wouldn't have seen the daylight otherwise, and with help from others I've been able to track errors and add new information to the published articles. That's the miracle of the internet. And that's my last say about this particular type of whine. No cheese, thanks.

[gripen]

Originally posted by BlauK

gripen,
you sound like you were a paying customer who is dissappointed with the content of his subscription.

No-one makes any profit for anything published at the association's site. So what if grendel is a journalist by profession. That page is not his work, it is part of his hobby. That is a co-effort of people interested in the issue. Certainly they are asking the readers to help make the page better.

Well, if the introduction of the page announces that:

"This article and its sub sections are put together to dispell some of the persistent myths about the Messerschmitt 109 fighter."

And:

"I've regularly seen same "reports", that are practically pure fantasy and filled with errors and disinformation, being quoted as facts in various bulletin boards and even articles."

Then it's quite clear that the authors should have quite strong evidence to back up their words. But apparently they have not even seen the reports they are critisizing.

Originally posted by BlauK
I hope some readers will find it interesting and offer their help.

Actually offered above a bit help to obtain the document the authors have not seen but for one reason or another Mr. Grendel refused.  

Originally posted by BlauK
You certainly have made your own position clear, and your "savo"

That was a response to Mr. Grendel's claim that "reader is responsible on what he sees" and that claim is very "savoish" as you certainly know.

Originally posted by BlauK

and "computer-magazine" comments also made your personal agenda pretty obvious.

Actually it was Mr. Charge who did bring in Mr. Grendel's journalist background to this discussion as an argument.

Originally posted by Grendel
RAF Royal Aircraft Establishment (RAE) Farnborough handling trials,Bf.109E Wn: 1304.
...
They're actually a 1941 report from tests conducted in September of 1940 from an aircraft that was captured by the French in 1939 (see next chapter). At the time the tests were conducted in 1940, they didn't have oxygen bottles for the 109, so test could only be done at low to medium altitude...
The 109 tested is claimed to be "Me 109E-3 Werk-Nr 1304" which is documented to have been captured. However, there is some discrepency as to WerkNr 1304 actually being an Me109E-1. So what have they tested? E-1? E-3? E-4? Did they test one of the crash landed, damaged planes? So we got major confusion with the tested plane. Also, Bf 109 E-3 WNr. 1304 (RAF AE 479) was at one point crash landed, among other things, and it received a new tail section from a Bf 109 E-4 WNr. 1980. ..
Another problem is with the test itself, when compared to a Spitfire. Overall the accuracy of the test suffers from the fact that it was flown with a crash landed plane wirh a worn, several years old engine producing less power than usual...
...

Etc. Doesn't sound that trustworhy to me.

Basicly pure speculation and by reading the report pretty much all these can be disproved and/or checked (testing dates,  sub type... etc.).

BTW what's source of those arguments? Bulletin boards or maybe primary documents which you have actually seen?

Originally posted by Grendel

Btw I've written articles to websites, newsgroups etc, sometimes bloody drunk, I've done all kinds of things in my freetime without keeping my "professional author" coat on all the time. I can wear it when necessary, when I'm doing *serious* writing, but this 109 myths text sure ain't one of those. Case closed.

Maybe you could ad above text to the beginning of the article and no one will never again complain about the 109 Myths.

gripen

[Seeker]

Gripen;

You sure (and I mean this well; I generaly read your posts avidly); you really sure you're not being a bit of a Barbi here?

Give the guy a break; and respect what the page is...

An historical document that is worthy of research in of it's self; it's not presented as the product of research.

These guys will soon be gone; and it's important we harvest thier recollections while we have them.

We can spend the next hundred years arguing over how we should interpret them......

( I'm just jealous I haven't found a similar collated collection of Spit drivers reminisences.)

[gripen]

Originally posted by Seeker

Give the guy a break; and respect what the page is...

I truly respect Mr. Grendel's effort on collecting pilot's memories.

gripen

[Kurfürst]

Well I think the situation is quite clear about the article, there are some people with strong agenda against the Bf 109 and attempt to describe it as a worthless POS at every opportunity, the MiloMoron, gripen, paseolati, guppy, Mike Williams etc. They  manipulate the evidence and primary sources to create new myths, while some others create new ones simply because they don`t know the design very well and rely on old books that ever since become obsolate references.

All Grendel did was some well-due mythbusting, which will probably enlighted those who just didn`t know enough yet, and enrage the guys who have the mentioned agenda, like gripen, so they will try to dispute and dismiss the sources gathered in place, that creates quite an overwhelming and convincing experience to the reader against all those myths.

Well done Grendel !

[Kurfürst]

Originally posted by FalconSix
The RAE tests of the 109 are worthless. The brits never dared push the captured 109s to get the most out of them. I trust British tests on the 109 as much as I trust German tests on the Spit, i.e. not at all.

Quite true. Captured enemy planes are just that. They are flown damaged, worn-out, and by pilots who are inexperienced with the type... come on, 1944 british tests on the 109Gs still tell us they haven`t figured out what the slats are for, the only reason for some`s enthusiasm for these tests is that they show the hated plane in the worst possible light... same for almost all captured tests. They might give you some hint, but not much more than that.

[straffo]

Originally posted by Kurfürst
Well I think the situation is quite clear about the article, there are some people with strong agenda against the Bf 109 and attempt to describe it as a worthless POS at every opportunity, the MiloMoron, gripen, paseolati, guppy, Mike Williams etc. They  manipulate the evidence and primary sources to create new myths, while some others create new ones simply because they don`t know the design very well and rely on old books that ever since become obsolate references.
 

You are aware this sentence apply to you also ?

[Kurfürst]

I don`t think so, straffo. I try my best to avoid myth-creating, but if you can give me specific examples, I am all open to re-examine the matter.

[Angus]

Hehe, this:
"Captured enemy planes are just that. They are flown damaged, worn-out, and by pilots who are inexperienced with the type... come on, 1944 british tests on the 109Gs still tell us they haven`t figured out what the slats are for"

So:
1: British did have slatted aircraft before the birth of the 109.
2: Damaged? Perhaps. Worn out?? Did they only capture worn out aircraft?
3: Pilots inexperieced with the type yes, but highly experienced aviators. Unlike the average LW aviator in 1944 which filled neither category.

[Kurfürst]

1, Then why do they say in all their reports the pilots are emberassed by the opening of the slots? OBVIOUSLY they had no experience with slatted aircraft, dear Angus, because then they`d know how to fly it. And BTW, which British fighters had auitamtic slots ? I know of none during WW2, so how would the test pilot`s know how to use combat manouvers with it?

2, Worn out... hmmm.. the 109E they tested was belly landed from a year ago, tested also by the french. The 109F they tested also belly landed, and the report notes the engine is worn out. The 109G-2 they tested was captured with battle damaged, malfunctioning equipment, with a holed prop. The 109g-6 they tested was very worn, one just have to look at the painting condition on pictures...  that`s the nature of captured planes.

3, Well an avarage LW newbie of 1944 had around 120-150 flying hours, of which he spent about 30 hours on the final type (ie. the 109) he was to fight in. In comparision, Eric Brown flew less than an hour in the Bf 109 in total... so even the the `44 Nachwuchs had infinietely more experience with the Bf 109 than the RAF pilots testing it`s caputred examples. Moreover, the latter ones had to be careful not to wreck the rare example while trying to finding out how to fly it with no trainer`s help. I am sorry but you can`t drive a Forula-1 car rightly just because you have a 15-year old driving license and had driven a Volvo ever since.

I am sorry, but to think that worn out dameged planes lacking spare parts (at best cannibalized from crashed similiar enemy types) flown by untrained pilots with only a few hours of experience in the plane will perform like brand new ones with proper maintaince and specific training for the type is a naive thing to do. Or if you wish to take German/Soviet Spitfire test over British ones, just say the world, you`d be disappointed.

[Angus]

Does Handley Page slots ring a bell?
Only the 109 and Lala amongst all the more common ww2 warbirds featured slots.
And getting more into them, Jeff Quill seems to have the same opinion as Rall.
Now on to tests, - I'd like to see those. I have a German test of a G series aircraft from 1944, and it would be nice to compare.
Off to tests again, - wonder what the situation of captured allied aircraft was. The Germans seemed to like them very much..

[Charge]

Can anybody tell me what kind of effect H-P slats have on how much AoA the 109 can pull according to its wing profile -with and without slats?

-C+

[Wotan]

None, but this is Angus' typical line of discussion. Not only does it have nothing to do with the slats on a 109 but they have no bearing on whether or not those allied pilots, including Eric Brown, were willing to push to 109 to edge of stall.

The HP 17, HP 20 and HP 39 have nothing comparable to the 109...