something from Dogfights

[Bucky73]

Originally posted by Guppy35
As for the moves shown and thier validity.  I'm not going to challenge the memory of a guy who at the moment he made the move was basically choosing between getting shot with a cannon round, and potentially breaking his airplane to try to avoid it.

I'm guessing that his memory might be quite good of a life or death moment like that.

And Krusty....NO I don't believe everything the history or military channel says but...I'll damn sure believe someone who was actually there and part of the event ALWAYS before I believe some "armchair quarterbacks" that have no clue what they are talking about.

I swear these WWII pilots could say something like "my plane was silver and red" and you guys would find a reason to argue that it was black.

priceless:rofl

[Delirium]

Originally posted by Guppy35
I'm not going to challenge the memory of a guy who at the moment he made the move was basically choosing between getting shot with a cannon round, and potentially breaking his airplane to try to avoid it.

Well, I will... there is no doubt that a 12 year old kid who has read one book from the library has alot more information than any WWII Aviator would have.

[Krusty]

You won't challenge the memory of an actual pilot? Hrm.. sure...

Like the one US pilot that would go around to meetings (conventions?) after the war and boisterously claim to have shot down famous german pilots that he never met in battle, ever?

Watch where you put your blind devotion. It usually leads you into a wall. Or off a cliff. Better to use a little logic, judgement, and crack an eyelid now and then to see where you're going.

[E25280]

Originally posted by Geary420
Check out the thread started by WideWing in the Aircraft and Vehicles forum.

Try this one.

[Bucky73]

Originally posted by Delirium
Well, I will... there is no doubt that a 12 year old kid who has read one book from the library has alot more information than any WWII Aviator would have.

Exactly:rofl

Apparently Krusty has read that book.

Is this guy for real?!?!:rofl

[humble]

Originally posted by Viking
Oh yeah, the interviewers were clearly 109 enthusiasts, but that doesn't change what the real pilots said ... or what the real aircraft do.

Interesting that Gunther Rahl who flew the P-51 for the luftwaffe during the war as commander of the luftwaffe equivelent to an "aggressor" squadron has stated repeatedly that he clearly prefered the pony over the 109. Chuck Yeager had alot of time after the war in verious german birds and reached the same conclusion.

It's funny listening to these guys however. The 1st guy tells us about the 109 and how much better it flies but then says he has a total of 1 hour in the 109. Then skip says the spitIX is basically the same plane as the spitV.

Which would be like saying the 109F4 is the same as the 109G6. At one time the 1st guy is saying the 109G will handily out turn the pony, but then saying the pony bleeds E significantly faster?

The 109G6 is actually slower then the G-2 by a noticable amount. The P-51 is significantly faster then the G6. No question the 109G-6 out turns the pony both IRL and in the game...it wasnt even really close.

Now if we look at the spitIX vs the 109G6 its a pretty even match up with a slight edge to the spitty but the spitV will turn circles around both the 109 and the IX...again clueless comments from a guy who should know better.

I couldnt tell if these guys were just pulling the reporters chain or actually that misinformed about what they fly...or maybe they just dont fly them all that well.

[Widewing]

Originally posted by Krusty
You won't challenge the memory of an actual pilot? Hrm.. sure...

Like the one US pilot that would go around to meetings (conventions?) after the war and boisterously claim to have shot down famous german pilots that he never met in battle, ever?

Watch where you put your blind devotion. It usually leads you into a wall. Or off a cliff. Better to use a little logic, judgement, and crack an eyelid now and then to see where you're going.

I can understand wondering if an 85 year-old man's (Bryan) memory may be a bit hazy... However, what he stated on the TV show is backed up by his combat report, taken down during the mission debrief. Surely his memory of events two hours prior (along with testimony of witnesses) would be accurate, right?

Here's his combat report:



My regards,

Widewing

[Squire]

It depends on altitude, energy states, fuel loads, ect of the opposing fighters, as to which might out turn the other and force another fighter on the defensive first, just as in AH. Maybe one pilot initiated a hard break turn first?, or pulled more G?, or was more aggressive?, you have dozens, hundreds? of factors involved. One combat will not be a "carbon copy" of another, ever. Add to that that "aces" by their nature were competent, aggressive flyers, often "out muscling" (or out thinking) the opposition in a supposedly "equal" fight.

You can't take one combat, and then demand a "cut and paste" result that matches it exactly, not when its a contest of people, as well as machines.

[Widewing]

Originally posted by Viking
Oh yeah, the interviewers were clearly 109 enthusiasts, but that doesn't change what the real pilots said ... or what the real aircraft do.

Let's quote Mark Hanna who logged more 109, Spitfire and P-51 time than many WWII combat pilots. Certainly more in the 109 and Spitfire than either Skip Holm or his friend in the video can dream of.

"First, let me say that all my comments are based on operations below 10,000 feet and at power settings not exceeding 40 inches and 2,600rpm. I like the airplane, and with familiarity, I think it will give most of the Allied fighters I have flown a hard time-particularly in a close, hard-turning, low-speed dogfight. It will definitely out-maneuver a P-51 in this type of fight because the roll rate and slow-speed characteristics are much better. The Spitfire, on the other hand, is more of a problem for the 109, and I feel it is a superior close-in fighter. Having said that, the aircraft are sufficiently closely matched that pilot ability would probably be the deciding factor.

At higher speeds, the P-51 is definitely superior, and provided the Mustang kept its energy up and refused to dogfight, it would be relatively safe against the 109."

You can find Hanna's article on the 109 in the December 1999 issue of Flight Journal, or you can read it online, without the photos and sidebar notes, here.

My regards,

Widewing

[humble]

WW I've read that article about 100 times over the years. Probably one of (if not the best) the best contemporary accounts on flying a warbird.

Given that the poor guy died pooching a landing in a 109 in Spain I've always found this comment particularly prophetic...

To my eye, the aircraft looks dangerous, both to the enemy and to its own pilots

I think thats the thing that Gunther Rahls comments on the 109 vs P-51 bring home...just how much work the 109 was to fly vs the pony (and other allied planes) he flew as head of the luftwaffe's special unit that flew familiarization "aggressor" type flights vs other luftwaffe units. He said it was easier to fly the P-51 for 5 hours then the 109 for 1 hour.

[Krusty]

WW, in this case yes. But there's a certain cadre of folks in this community, with no distinction other than they latch on to anything told to them, and never question it.

In THIS case there's other evidence, but that's not what he said. He said he'd blindly obey anything said by an ex-pilot as testament from God, basically. With such an absurd blanket statement, it begged the question.


The personal insults notwithstanding, those just go hand-in-hand with narrow minded folks that don't like their religion (?) questioned.


"Hallowed History Channel, who art in cable, never doubt we yet, thy season comes, our minds we give, to you and stop using them for ourselves..."

[Viking]

Originally posted by humble
Interesting that Gunther Rahl who flew the P-51 for the luftwaffe during the war as commander of the luftwaffe equivelent to an "aggressor" squadron has stated repeatedly that he clearly prefered the pony over the 109. Chuck Yeager had alot of time after the war in verious german birds and reached the same conclusion.

Why is this interesting? I would chose the P-51 as well. Has nothing to do with the turning performance of the planes. You comment is irrelevant.

Originally posted by humble
It's funny listening to these guys however. The 1st guy tells us about the 109 and how much better it flies but then says he has a total of 1 hour in the 109. Then skip says the spitIX is basically the same plane as the spitV.

I'd take the word of a pilot with one hour in the 109 over a pilot or kid with zero hours in the 109. The Spit IX is basically the same plane as the Spit V. The IX got a bigger engine, that's all.

Originally posted by humble
Which would be like saying the 109F4 is the same as the 109G6. At one time the 1st guy is saying the 109G will handily out turn the pony, but then saying the pony bleeds E significantly faster?

No, there were a lot more modifications to the G series than a simple engine upgrade. The Pony bleeds E significantly faster at high angles of attack due to its laminar flow wings.  What did you not understand?

Originally posted by humble
No question the 109G-6 out turns the pony both IRL and in the game...it wasnt even really close.

That is the only part of your post that is actually relevant to mine. Some kid posted that the P-51 supposedly out turned the 109. I disagree, and obviously so do you.

[Guppy35]

Originally posted by Krusty
You won't challenge the memory of an actual pilot? Hrm.. sure...

Like the one US pilot that would go around to meetings (conventions?) after the war and boisterously claim to have shot down famous german pilots that he never met in battle, ever?

Watch where you put your blind devotion. It usually leads you into a wall. Or off a cliff. Better to use a little logic, judgement, and crack an eyelid now and then to see where you're going.

Careful Krusty.  I'd think you'd know better in terms of the time I've spent dealing with vets, and the history of this stuff.

My point was, Bryan was in a life and death situation.  He wasn't hand flying at some airshow.  My point was I'd believe his memory of a moment where his life was on the line.

I didn't say that all WW2 vets memories were infallable.  I sat in a room of Spit XII pilots back in 85 as they talked about their experiences.  I'd been immersed in it for 5 years almost daily at that point and it was further back for them.  They'd ask me if they're memories were correct on a lot of things.

It was not the combat stuff however.  Those memories were way to vivid and stuff they had a hard time talking about.  That was true for the bomber guys i dealt with too.  

Are there WW2 vets who've lived off their stories?  Sure.  Any number of them have done so.  Tom Lanphier of the Yammamoto mission essentially alienated his squad mates by trying to capitalize on the story.  Ben Drew has bounced around at airshows selling photos etc for years.  Galland's stories were often suspect.  Pierre Clostermann.  

I don't believe Don Bryan fits that category however, and yeah I'll take his word for it.

But please Krusty don't preach at me about this stuff.  It's the wrong place for you to go.

[Viking]

Originally posted by Widewing
Let's quote Mark Hanna who logged more 109, Spitfire and P-51 time than many WWII combat pilots. Certainly more in the 109 and Spitfire than either Skip Holm or his friend in the video can dream of.

"First, let me say that all my comments are based on operations below 10,000 feet and at power settings not exceeding 40 inches and 2,600rpm. I like the airplane, and with familiarity, I think it will give most of the Allied fighters I have flown a hard time-particularly in a close, hard-turning, low-speed dogfight. It will definitely out-maneuver a P-51 in this type of fight because the roll rate and slow-speed characteristics are much better. The Spitfire, on the other hand, is more of a problem for the 109, and I feel it is a superior close-in fighter. Having said that, the aircraft are sufficiently closely matched that pilot ability would probably be the deciding factor.

At higher speeds, the P-51 is definitely superior, and provided the Mustang kept its energy up and refused to dogfight, it would be relatively safe against the 109."

You can find Hanna's article on the 109 in the December 1999 issue of Flight Journal, or you can read it online, without the photos and sidebar notes, here.

My regards,

Widewing

Mark Hanna flew the Hispano Aviacion Buchon, which is a 109G-2 with a Merlin bolted to the front. However Hanna's Buchon was modified to look like a 109E which ruined some of the plane's performance. It is interesting that Hanna says the Buchon rolls faster than the P-51. It is also interesting that he says the P-51 will be "safe" from the 109 if the p-51 keeps his speed up and refuse to fight... Clearly Hanna considers the 109 the hunter in such a match up. In any case ... Hanna's Film star Buchon can't hope to match the speeds of late mark 109G's and as such it is no surprise that he found it wanting in the speed department compared to the P-51. Truth be told the 109's always fell short in speed compared to contemporary P-51's ... not as much as Hanna's Buchon, but still...

[Bucky73]

Originally posted by Krusty
In THIS case there's other evidence, but that's not what he said. He said he'd blindly obey anything said by an ex-pilot as testament from God, basically. With such an absurd blanket statement, it begged the question.


"Hallowed History Channel, who art in cable, never doubt we yet, thy season comes, our minds we give, to you and stop using them for ourselves..."

"blindly obeyed"? ummm what???? I sure hope your not talking about me because I NEVER said that.....

I said "I will believe an ACTUAL PILOT always before an armchair quarterback" (such as yourself)
So, please stop making stuff up for the sake of arguing.

Btw Krusty....why should we believe YOU over these guys? Do you have any reference for your blubber or do you just pull it our your ***? Anything can be debated as I said before.  I think we owe them the benefit of the doubt unless you in your infinite wisdom can prove them wrong.


How are things in the peanut gallery?