Ok, this thread has clearly been under attack by some of you, repeatedly going off topic and making personal attacks. And theres no mods... so fine, I'll put it back on topic.
The following is everything these ROC VIOLATORS have attacked.
This is too easy,
English secret service ordered the guy to crash it so that England wouldn't be proven to be a nation of liars with their 1001 lieing documentaries that put thoughts in peeps heads like 109's were difficult to land.
That being said, powerful 109 Engines do tend to flip light weight 109's. All 109 pilots knew not to do large sudden changes in the throttle while landing. As opposed to the weak stuff, for example a spitfire, a guy could jam the throttle back and forth all day and not be able to flip it if he tried.
Had the plane been tested by a team of non partial judges, it would have far out flown any English written stats - especially those by the lieing liar Eric Brown.
-------------------------------------------
Its soooo simple:
High powered 109s, don't put full throttle from idle and ya wont flip the plane. Same probly goes for don't drop throttle from full to idle either to fast either, might flip it. Now lets see facts in a positive light - high power with low weight usually equals speed. As for the gear mechanisms being closer to center axis, this meant better roll rates, but also is negatively interpreted as 'dangerous landing' only.
Haters of the 109s run their mouths a bout 'landing probs,' but they don't dare mention the positive that this meant higher speed and faster roll rates.
And the plane was crashed for that reason - to hide the positive part, so that it can't be proven.
National Pride translated into National Reputation and Security.
Its like the olympics, the planes were the best the countries could come up with, representative of the countries as a whole. Probs magnify because saying the spit is better or not, doesn't mean USA didn't save thier butts. England's secret service saw that tiny lil 60year ole plane as a threat to its dignity, history, reputation, and security. Proving Eric Brown a liar is proving England a liar for supporting and allowing him to record his trash. No nation wants to be known for twisting facts. And ofcourse England being able to 'hold its own' in reputation and military power has to do with its security now... Imagine the arabs saying 'Well, England said blah blah, but you know how those English lie..."
--------------------------------------------
That was only some pie, heres the rest:
The radiator levers...? pathetic, if he didn't know how to opperate the plane then he had no business being in such a rare plane. The 'news clipping' said the pilot had 18 hours on the plane. He probly already read the pilot handbook, but also had a proceedures check list with him, and he would have been in radio contact with someone whom also would have been fully read on the plane with a proceedures/check list book in hand.
Giving it a bad rep about landing was, in a way, a 'wonderful bonus.' The myth was the primary 'leg to stand on' for the 'accident reason' to wreck it. Its like killing two birds with one stone - destroy the 'source' and add to the lies at the same time.
The true reason for destroying the craft was so that the plane wouldn't be able to be tested for flight stats. The news clip said something about 'this was its last flight anyways.' They didn't want the plane to ever be recomissioned and used as a 'source.'
About landing: when on retreat, pilots sometimes have to quickly learning new airfields, lots of reasons for wrecking more than plane design or pilot error. How about battle damage to cause crash landings, like the gear shot out? Check Galland's Book about after D-day in france, many Luftwaffes, that were based in germany to protect german industry from b17 and b24, were flying west to find bombed out or capped airstrips. Sometimes they had to land at crowded smaller secondary bases. The plane wasn't any more difficult to land than any dam thing else. They lied to kill a stat source.
----------------------------------------------
The probs with 109s? Compression off the top, the rest of the stats are questionable, lack of credible sources. In todays world, with computers and new electronics, testing that plane would be much more definitive, even if we had Russian and French judges... (the 04' olympics)
The prob that we're talking about though is that this 109 can no longer be tested for the very stats in question. Just because 109s tend to kill their opponents, or go against b24s and b17's, they are more likely the planes to be returning to land with a little damage. Hence they sometimes have to 'ditch.' But these guys are trying to say that 109s are accident prone when landing. The truth is that all ya have to do is not jam the throttle back and forth too quickly (considering such a powerful engine and low weight plane) and ya won't flip, like this 'professional' did, whom we are sure did all of his homework on the plane before ever getting into it. Seems he also forgot how to operate the radiators... And we are expected to believe this was an 'accident.' Well, if so, he accidentally saved the worlds view of England, had any testing results shown that the plane was
Lets dance
