109 article (from www.virtualpilots.fi)

[BlauK]

Karnak,
is it not always the reader who will be responsible in what he will believe?

At least that page provides lots of compiled views on the topic. It is not a scientific work where every reference should be tracked to its origin and it does not claim telling the truth about everything. It does, however, prove the point that there have been and still are lots of myths about the 109, and it provides lots of food for discussion.

I have not earlier seen any earlier attempt of this scale on this topic. Definitely 5 points

[Karnak]

I was explaining a shortcoming.  The document is not an answer to the myths about the 109.  It is just a bunch of opinions, many contradictory.

[FalconSix]

Example?

[StarOfAfrica2]

Ok, I guess I shouldnt so cavalierly just toss out a low score and not explain why.

Yes, they clollected alot of information.  Ok.  Much of that information is already on the internet.  Cut and paste and add some comments.  Wow.  Not that it isnt a good thing to have it all collected in one place, dont get me wrong.  I'm a 109 fan from way back, and I'm aware that there are myths about it's performance or skewed information from people who'd like to show their favorite plane as "better".  But lets get one thing straight.  If you are going to claim "facts" then you need to backup your statements with sources.  In some cases this is a statement from a pilot.  Fine I accept a pilot's feelings or memories about whether or not he could control a 109 at 500 mph to be more insightful than a paper report on a damaged plane done by people who didnt understand how it worked.  When the same pilot's claims go against factory data, it's still not impossible but I have a harder time buying it without corroboration.  We've had this discussion before.  Pilots arent aeronautical engineers, or mechanics.  In some things I take their word for it.  In others I want more proof.  No disrespect intended to those men, but they were worried about more important things when they were flying fighter planes.  Most of their "memories" of flying fighters are memories of "feelings" or whatever you want to call it when it comes to performance.  Many times what they tell you is what THEY read when they were given information on their ride.  Scientific debunking of any Myth or False Fact requires more.  Sorry.  Those of you who remember the argument over the slats on the 109 not so long ago, will also remember there is information out there saying both sides of the argument.  The author of this article says he cant find any information to corroborate any problems, and tends to disbelieve it, but acknowledges on certain fronts, with early (E series) 109s, the problems could have existed.  So what is proven there?  What is debunked?  Nothing.  He says he has no information other than a few pilot quotes.  That tells me he didnt look far off the internet for his sources.  In the credits, I count 14 interviews, 13 of which were only with Finnish pilots (not exactly a cross-section of 109 pilots, considering the many various theatres and conditions the 109 flew in), 1 with a German (Stigler), and copies of a lecture by Rall, a bio of Hartmann, and various test results by allied forces who didnt understand the plane or how it worked.  There is one website with a (supposed) technical writeup on the 109F and one, I repeat ONE book listed "Messerschmitt Bf 109 and the German war economy), ISBN 951-95688-7-5. Quotes used with author's permission".

Even on the issue of the slats he contradicts his statements.  He gives technical information on how they operate, and then later in the article talks about how pilots could "pop them out manually" on a landing approach without explanation.  He even has quotes from pilots saying the slats could NOT be manually controlled.  Small example, but there are more examples of contradiction that are not addressed.  One that bothers me is where the author decides to contradict what he feels is a fallacy, in that elliptical wings are not the advantage that they are claimed (re: the Spitfire) and goes on to say that such advantages were only THEORETICAL.  I see.  I know several aerodynamic engineers and at least one company that builds pre-fab ultra-light and sport planes that would disagree wholeheartedly.  He drops big words, but doesnt give one study or book or anything other than his opinion to back up his statements.  How did he prove anything there?  Then he goes on later to claim figures quoted by FLIGHT JOURNAL are either wrong or misinterpreted in regards to landing gear failures during takeoff or landing.  They made no such claim.  The article merely stated total numbers of accidents for takeoff and landing that resulted in a/c destruction.  It says nothing about landing gear failure specifically.  Also, he provides no facts of his own, or his source for claiming the article in the publication was wrong.

Bottom line, I appreciate what they were trying to do.  I even support it.  And no matter what I love reading the quotes from the pilots and anecdotes.  But if you want to label your work as "Fact" or say that you are "Debunking" a myth, you need proof.

[BlauK]

"pop them out manually" eh? It does not say so, word manually is not used. That is only your own interpretation. The text is talking about a higher speed approach. It simply means that the plane can be made to approach stall even in higher speed by increasing the angle of attack and therefore popping the slats out intentionally.

How should this direct quote from Flight Journal be interpreted in your opinion?
"it was manufactured right up to the end of the War and was a most promising fighter, but 11,000 of the 33,000 built were destroyed during takeoff and landing accidents-one third of its combat potential! I was amazed when my friend and 176-kills ace the late Gen. Johannes Steinhoff told me this. It seems incredible that the primary cause of this outrageous statistic-a splayed-out wheel landing gear known to have incorrect geometry-was not rectified immediately by the powers that be."
Does it not imply that the landing gear was the primary cause for these accidents? That is true, though, that Flight Journal does not claim that the gear failures caused the accidents, but the bad design. This 109 myth page page talks about "5% lost planes in takeoff/landing accidents", but also about "5% lost in gear failures". This seems to require further clarification.

Did you skip the introduction completely, because, IMHO, you are mostly criticizing that YOU are taking this compilation as a fact. What you say about pilots' opinions is written pretty much in a same way in the introduction. Did you even notice that the main author (or compiler actually) challenges the readers to point out week parts and wrong information. He is asking for everyone to help with that work, not stating that this here is fact. Maybe you have had a ready made decision of this compilation already before you looked at it

IMO, the main point of this page is to debunk various myths, not A myth like you put it. It also attempts to compile facts, but once again does not present itself as a finished work and A fact, like you want to interpret it.

[StarOfAfrica2]

If I missed some things, I'm sorry, but thats alot of info to go over and over again.  I'll certainly look again if you point out something I missed and reread it.  

My point was that while the author makes claims, he does not provide proof of his own to back them up.  If you want to refute data, fine.  Provide sources for your own data that shows its wrong.  Where did HIS data on landing gear come from?  What makes him assume he's right and the previous data is wrong?  Or that the previous data was right but improperly presented, and show the breakdown where his figures come from?  I'm sure he must have a source, so where is it?  Perhaps an oversight.  But a glaring one.  Even he admits on his site, many times flawed data is repeated in several sources because the original source was wrong.  Thats why its imperitive he LISTS all his sources.  He gleaned over 90% of his data from websites and bulletin boards.  Who checked the facts on those?  Without any of that this is just another nice (although slightly wordy) site on the 109.  It establishes NOTHING as a fact, debunks NO myths, so it doesnt live up to its stated purpose.  And I did email the author, thank you.  Hopefully he will make the changes to his source list, and provide the info in the appropriate places to backup his data.  If you happen to know the guy, and can pass it along to him, even better.  

Look I can go out on the internet and find someone that will say just about anything from any point of view on any subject.  If I pick the ones that support the view I want to present, and point to them as "sources" for my argument, does that make it factual?  Not that there havent been erroneous facts printed in books too, there have been hundreds of them.  But at least a publisher printing a book tells me SOMEONE went through it, it has SOME kind of legitimacy.  

Besides, the thread asked how I'd score the site.  I gave my answer.  I'm sorry if you dont like it.  It's my opinion, and you obvioulsy have a different one.  Neither one of us have anything vested in the site, so why are you getting so worked up over it?  I guess you missed the last line of my last post.

[Panzzer]

Originally posted by StarOfAfrica2
If you happen to know the guy, and can pass it along to him, even better.  

Grendel does read these boards (and plays AH), so I'm sure your feedback gets read at some point.

Back to the subject: 4. It's a bit fragmented (but still a nice way to spend a work day ).

[StarOfAfrica2]

Definitely.  I enjoyed reading it, and if I gave any other impression, I certainly didnt mean to.  Its a great site to peruse when I'm bored and pick up useful tidbits of information.

I definitely give an for the effort expended and the material coverd.  I just want to see it cover its stated purpose better so that it actually DOES prove wrong the bad things people have said about the 109 over the years.  This plane has always captured my imagination.

[BlauK]

Star,
I completely agree with you about the need of references. I hope more of them will be added. Just for example that landing(gear) accident stuff should be clarified and references published.

Stil it is a beginning and a huge compilation. IMO, it is better that it is already out for inspection and discussion, instead of keeping it private until everything was checked thoroughly.

Certainly we are grading it from different points of view me for the effort and you for its proven credibility. Great, that you contacted Grendel.

[FalconSix]

Originally posted by StarOfAfrica2
Even on the issue of the slats he contradicts his statements.  He gives technical information on how they operate, and then later in the article talks about how pilots could "pop them out manually" on a landing approach without explanation.  He even has quotes from pilots saying the slats could NOT be manually controlled.

Remember that english is their second language. It was standard procedure to provoke the deployment of slats prior to landing, and make sure they were deployed.

Originally posted by StarOfAfrica2
One that bothers me is where the author decides to contradict what he feels is a fallacy, in that elliptical wings are not the advantage that they are claimed (re: the Spitfire) and goes on to say that such advantages were only THEORETICAL.

With regard for the Spitfire it was just theoretical. The Spit's wing twist negated the effect of the elliptical wing. Although the wing was physically elliptical, its lift was not (its footprint in the air if you will).

[StarOfAfrica2]

The email I sent bounced back.  Has anyone else sent him email recently?  If so, I'll try to resend it.  Or if someone knows of an alternate email?  Thanks.

[BlauK]

You should be able to use the "send feedback" link or if not, check his contact info from http://www.virtualpilots.fi/info/ ..right side blueish box, find his name and add the @ in proper space. I am not  posting it here just to reduce spam.

[StarOfAfrica2]

Thanks, I'll try again when I get home tonight.

[gripen]

IMHO virtualpilots here in Finland really do good work when they collect memories from old aviators. But that article is not what it is claimed to be ie "primarily a collection of pilot's anecdotes that relate to actual flying of the plane". 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

[Grendel]

Howdi,

Nice to the article provoking thought once again

Yup, it is not a scientific work, primarily a collection of pilot quotes from various sources. The analysis stuff is mostly written by others, since I am not interested on technical subjects.

Contradictions on the article? Definitely. Read the introduction. "It is not a serious study - mainly just bunch of pilot opinions that might be conflicting to each other. " People tend to have different opinions about same things. Get half a dozen witnesses of an accident, you get half a dozen different stories what happened.

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

I'm not putting much more effort on the article except adding pilot quotes from time to time, but anyone is welcome to add to it, correct errors and so on. Use the feedback system on the article for that. It took one year already just putting that damn article together and I do have multitude of other stuff to do as well.

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 ;-) So there doesn't seem to be coming major changes to the article content, though I've done a small redesign changing its structure a bit. But yes, it is and will be "fragmented" as there is no other way to present the dozens of smaller subjects sensibly.

The article does indeed say in the beginning that "All help is appreciated. Quotes from 109 pilots from different sources are most welcome. Please remember to always give the source, name/author and ISBN, if it is from a book. The readers are also encouraged to send other material and write expnalations, dispell myths and add or correct the information in it, be it technical or anything." But well, the help from others has been practically zero so far - during the two years the article has been in making. So get your books and get the quotes coming, if you want to help. During all this time I'd only one guy to help with translating quotes from Hannu Valtonen's excellent Bf 109 resource book, and I know that most of the diehard enthusiasts in Finland got that book. "Oh, it is great you're doing this article but I got to feed my cat, I can't help you sorry".  I got other priorities right now so I'm not translating / adding quotes just by myself on next half a year or so, but if you want to help I'm more than happy to add your stuff to the article.

Btw, Star,

Even on the issue of the slats he contradicts his statements. He gives technical information on how they operate, and then later in the article talks about how pilots could "pop them out manually" on a landing approach without explanation. He even has quotes from pilots saying the slats could NOT be manually controlled. Small example, but there are more examples of contradiction that are not addressed.

Um where does it say "pop them out manually", I couldnt find that bit and it is my article so... But I think I know what is said there. While pilot did not have any knob to operate the slats with, he could naturally cause condition when the slats come out. It was usual for the pilots, in landing, to approach the field, slow down and then nudge the stick to pop the slats out, then come down. Easy, if you know the trick.  If you had long runway you could land in higher speed without slats, they would also come out on their own if you came down in slow enough speed and you could take the slats out yourself if you wanted. Same thing in combat. Pilot can pop the slats out when he wants, even if he does not have direct control on them.

Cheers,
Gren