restored Messerschmitt Bf 109 E4 WN 3579

[GScholz]

F4UDOA why do you even bother? Your ramblings, obvious bias and downright dishonesty in the "109's kill ratio" thread makes you for ever uninteresting in discussions about the 109 ... just like "Kit" Carson.

Originally posted by F4UDOA
The FACT is that the 109 was ***** slapped into history in a big way.

This says all that needs to be known about you in this context.

[F4UDOA]

Gsholz,

Can you prove otherwise? Or anything for that matter?

[GScholz]

I think you've proved your own bias, by far. Tell me why do you even have documents on the 109 if you can't be bothered to learn to understand them or get them translated? Not to mention that that document you posted refuted your points on the DB's fuel economy, and STILL you posted it ... serious lack of judgment.

[F4UDOA]

How did I dis-prove my theory? What was my theory?

BTW, how come I have all of the documents and you provide nothing?

Why don't you put down your pom-poms and stop being a cheerleader.

Prove something, take a stand instead of criticising what other people think.

[GScholz]

Now that's rich, F4UDOA telling people to stop criticizing what other people think. Yeah right mister "Gsholz, You need your head examined really". You have rendered yourself inconsequential to all future debates on the 109. Feel free to post whatever you want, just don't expect people to take your post as being serious and honest, because they are not.

[F4UDOA]

Gsholz,

You may want to take a look at my posting history before you start judging me.

I have put as much real data on these boards as anybody. But if you notice the only threads that seem to go off the rails is the ones where anything criticising the Luftwaffa is mentioned.

Not only here but on other community BBS as well. The "luftwabbles" have a reputaion that goes well beyond AH so I am not exactly worried about my credibility as long as I am producing real documents.

[Ike 2K#]

did you try to block the swastika

[Glasses]

F4U simply because we resent as you do  that the aircraft of LW like you would if it would be critical of the same allied aircraft of it being portrayed as something it was not.

Many pre conditioned ideas about a certain aircraft made by a pilot that didn't even touch or flew the aircraft, are being put up as gospel yet those who flew it and swore by it are being refuted just because they were from the other side. Yet, over and over including the Russians for that matter have said that the 109 had pretty good roll at higher speeds again not as good as the 190s or a P-51 or P-47 but it maintained a good lateral control ability,however taking it out of dives from what I've read of several LW pilots was that it took some effort but it was recoverable non the less.

[Guppy35]

Originally posted by Glasses
F4U simply because we resent as you do  that the aircraft of LW like you would if it would be critical of the same allied aircraft of it being portrayed as something it was not.

I think you hit it on the head Glasses.  You defined exactly what F4UDOA was trying to say.

This isn't a new phenomenon as it happened on the AW boards and I'm sure the Warbirds boards.  In particular the LW fans get way bent out of shape that something isn't working exactly the way they think it should.  There's a rivet missing on a panal of a particular 190 and it's affecting the flight performance that should be better....etc etc.  Then they find a particular quote or graph that backs their point regardless of whether there is conflicting opinion and attempt to bury folks under 'data'.  Any critical comment must be because the poster is "from the Allied side".

Since when, can't someone enjoy the history of all the aircraft of WW2?  When did we have to choose sides?  hate to break it to ya folks, but this is a game last I checked and the war ended in 1945.  

Just cause his name includes F4U must make him biased to Allied aircraft?  Jeez, I like Spits, Mustangs, 38s, 109Es etc.  Why do I have to take sides?  I'd say that Hitech and company have done quite well representing both Axis and Allied aircraft.

Could it be that folks might just want to relax and enjoy the cyber flying.  It's not real after all, just a place for us to imagine how it might have been

Including the latest 109E profile I did for fun.  And frankly if I didn't get a panel line exactly right, I don't wanna know

Dan/Slack

[F4UDOA]

Glasses,

As Guppy said the tone of the Luftwaffe post are completely different from any other threads on any message board, AW, AH, WW2 online, IL2 etc.

It's not like the idea that at 400MPH the 109 became unmaneuverable is unfounded. There is allot of annecdotal eveidence out there that points that way.

If someone could just post some document that shows otherwise at 400MPH I could be convinced. But the doc that Batz shows clearly says 440KPH or 270MPH which matches Kit Carsons findings that the 109 rolled well at 250MPH.

[MiloMorai]

Good luck trying to get that info. In a thread over at the Ubi Il-2 forum this went round and round with no answer forthcoming from the 2 major LW fanatics, Huckebein and Isegrim.

[Glasses]

I don't dispute the fact the 109 was difficult to control compared to other aircraft at higher speeds. What I dispute is neccesarily that the aircraft was a lawndart at higher speeds,that's all.  I'm not taking sides but what I'm saying is that some ideas we have about particular aircraft, may or not be true. That's all

[GRUNHERZ]

F4UDOA

The article says the the aircraft was extremy smooth and stable at a 660kph dive which is 410mph.  You cannot say that about AH 109E4. Smooth and stabledoes not equal "concrete."

Second, even if the roll rate is only for 440kph wich is certainly pssible just going by the article. The AH model is still wrong because the Spitfire V in AH rolls much faster at that speed anyway,  not 50% slower as the article says.. Even the Spitfite Mk1 rolls just as good or better the 109E4 in AH.  

So I feel this is something that should be looked into by HTC.

[hogenbor]

Originally posted by Guppy35
Could it be that folks might just want to relax and enjoy the cyber flying.  It's not real after all, just a place for us to imagine how it might have been

Ahhh, common sense! What a rare sight on these boards!

Gentlemen, the world DOES NOT CARE if the Bf109 had control problems at high speeds. The endless bickering over charts, data and opinions frankly does make me want to scream : 'GET A LIFE!'

[VO101_Isegrim]

Originally posted by F4UDOA
Glasses,

As Guppy said the tone of the Luftwaffe post are completely different from any other threads on any message board, AW, AH, WW2 online, IL2 etc.

It's not like the idea that at 400MPH the 109 became unmaneuverable is unfounded. There is allot of annecdotal eveidence out there that points that way.

That`s quite ridiculus, especially when it comes from you. The "different tone" ? Hell, we have seen that from you, anyone just have to look up the "109 kill ratio" thread a bit below to see what exactly is F4UDOA`s tone when it comes that people are unwilling to accept his statements. .

Like his favourite about the locked-in-concrete-400mph-109s... he goes on and on again and again repeating this, on every forum, never ever backing it up with anything... time to time, we have to read these phrases about the "there`s countless many anecdotal evidence" stories from him. Yet I haven`t seen any of those from him. Read: I asked him - about how many, 8 or ten times by now ? - to support his views. He`s just INCAPABLE OF THAT every time. He just parrots it. Yet he critizises others for the lack of data.

So as it stands Mr. F4U claims that 109s had poor roll rate at high speed, he`s unable to back it up, and accuses others being biased when it`s his bias that become dead obvious with his poor arguements and mindless zealotry over that question.

Well I think we all well remember F4U`s classic at the 109 kill ratio thread about C-3.  

"Yeah I still don`t care what C-3 is".
Yet you showed similiar zeal regarding it. LOL. A true classic. How do you except people to take you seriously ?