Pierre Clostermann opinion of the Spitfire vs Me-109 and FW-190A

[Vulcan]

Which game?

Beauty and the Beast on Ice.

[nrshida]

I don't think Gaston is a malevolent force determined to remodel simulated versions of Fw190s to turn like Zeros across the world of gaming, I just think he's misguided with his education and thinking patterns. He tends to put the cart before the horse in terms of evidence and hypothesis. I was wondering if Greg would do a follow up video to his comments on Gaston's YouTube video. But he was busy with the Lancaster bomber of late, triggered apparently by a Mark Felton speculation.

[perdue3]

Is lost3 a shade for purdue3?

Non, but a great guess. I have no reason to shade. I am perdweeb.

[MiloMorai]

Non, but a great guess. I have no reason to shade. I am perdweeb.

Then why does 'lost3' show as the poster?

[perdue3]

Then why does 'lost3' show as the poster?

French translation of perdu to lost?

[Gaston]

Gaston,

You can post cherry picked anecdotes all you want.  You can misrepresent what has been stated by others all you want.

Your problem is that regardless of all of that, physics simply doesn't agree with you.


It is like you read an account of an Fw190 out turning a Spitfire Mk V and, ignorant of the specific situation in which that happened, locked onto all other claims, practical tests and so on that find that the Spitfire Mk V easily out turns the Fw190, all other things being equal as being false due to your first exposure being the contextless account of an Fw190 out turning a Spitfire Mk V when all other things were not equal.

  And yet here we are, after 15 plus years, and still not a single credible quote of the Spitfire ever out turning, at low sustained speeds, a FW-190A (but more quotes that the Spitfire did out-turn it around 280 knots and above, the exact contrary of what everyone assumes).

  If a single quote demonstrated that, in speeds well below 250-300 mph, the Spitfire could maintain a circle with a FW-190A, but without burning speed from a higher angle of attack (to shoot momentarily "across the circle" at a smaller circle -which I only ever heard being done from Spitfire pilots by the way- all of them describing as being forced to do this: ie: Shooting with the wings rumbling to aim "across the circle"...), I would consider it a serious counter quote. Note I am not even talking about gaining... I am talking about just maintaining the sight picture more than for a brief moment, in a turn that is not from a steep dive, basically.

  Not one account has surfaced. And I have been looking for 20 plus years.

  You keep mentioning specific situations, when most of the quotes I find are general statements from the most qualified people.

  Pierre Clostermann was the RAF's record mission holder at 400. He was, in addition, a trained engineer, and the only pilot I am aware of, on the Allied side, tasked with giving technical conferences on German aircrafts.

  Do you think when he said, in these conferences, that the Spitfire could not out-turn the Me-109 or FW-190A below 280 knots, that he intended to get Allied pilots killed?

  He said of the Spitfire's turn reputation (although the issue is not as much of a poor turn rate than of a poor turn radius) that below 280 knots this reputation was "a die hard legend"... Then you have, on the opposite side, innumerable correlations that the FW-190A was a low-speed turn fighter, including a Russian overall conclusion (In "Red Fleet" Feb. '43) from one year of front-line combat: "The FW-190A will inevitably offer turning combat at a minimum speed."

  You keep talking about cherry picking, because you fail to see it is the overall picture that contradicts you. On the other hand, you have US and British Navy test pilots on your side!

  The Spitfire Mk V out-turned the Spitfire Mk IX. That is just a fact you can ask any flying museum operating both of them today. Yes there is an odd Russian turn test time quote at 17 seconds (vs a more realistic 21 seconds for a Mk V), but then the Russians also removed the outer guns to try to get more maneuverability out of this fighter, which Galland called "great for aerobatics, but ridiculous as a fighter"... Yes, he was talking of the Spitfire.

  Sure the Johnny Johnson quote is about one encounter, but he CHOSE that encounter for a post war article:  Context is everything...




  Johnny Johnson was not just the RAF's top Spitfire ace, he was also the top Western FW-190A ace, with 20 kills on FW-190As alone... Do you really think he would choose this particular combat for an article in 1946 if he thought it was non-representative? This was not written the day of the action: It was cherry picked, by him, for a post war article... Johnny Johnson was the one doing the cherry picking. See how that changes the context? No, I guess you don't.

  Consider the Clostermann quote: Do you think Clostermann, top French ace at 27 kills,  and RAF mission record holder at 400, is more on my side or more on your side?


  Gaston


  P.S. As to the physics you keep assuming are infallible, I can only point to the inability of a professor of physics to understand that, through internal leverages, an engineless car could be 2.8 times faster than the wind... He bet $10000 that this could not be the case, because, you know, internal leverages don't exist.

  Same exact reasoning you apply here.

  https://youtu.be/uYnCI3XURx0

  G.

   

[Arlo]

Well, I knew it was coming. In fact, I predicted it quite a long time ago when I said that online Luftiewobblers would impose tremendous hardships on tens of thousands of decent, hardworking individuals. And now that it has, we must really banish divisiveness. To get right down to it, online Luftiewobblers attracts counterproductive schlubs to its entourage by telling them that it can convince criminals to fill out an application form before committing a crime. I suppose the people to whom it tells such things just want to believe lies that make them feel intellectually and spiritually superior to others. Whether or not that’s the case, I can hardly believe how in this day and age, disputatious, self-deluded buttinskies are allowed to break down the industrial-technological system. For the benefit of any doubting Thomases I will prove that point via an explanation of how online Luftiewobblers says that everyone would be a lot safer if it were to monitor all of our personal communications and financial transactions—even our library records. Why on Earth does online Luftiewobblers need to monitor our library records? There’s only one realistic answer to that question, and I believe you know what it is. I believe you also know that the tone of online Luftiewobblers’s jokes is eerily reminiscent of that of soulless bandits of the late 1940s in the sense that when a child first learns to draw in a coloring book, he or she has no patience for lines and boundaries and so the crayon is spread evenly across the page. I am afraid that online Luftiewobblers’s understrappers have succumbed to this temptation by spreading online Luftiewobblers’s despicable paroxysms throughout society. I allege we must combat this peevish, bloody-minded effort by letting everyone know that back when our policemen were guardians, not enforcers, they would have protected us from online Luftiewobblers’s retinue. Today, it seems that most officers of the law are content to sit back and let online Luftiewobblers commit senseless acts of violence against anyone daring to challenge its imperious-to-the-core threats. That’s why we must tell the story that impudent, profligate flag burners would be far more bearable if they didn’t combine the most sordid avarice with the most invincible hatred of the very people who tolerate and enrich online Luftiewobblers. But there is a bigger story, too: a story of hatred and intolerance, a story that online Luftiewobblers’s desire to ridicule the accomplishments of generations of great men and women is the chief sign that it’s a venom-spouting jargonaut. (The second sign is that online Luftiewobblers feels obliged to break down our communities.) Nations that have let repugnant, namby-pamby rabiators like online Luftiewobblers hinder economic growth and job creation invariably lapse from liberty to a state of slavish subjection. To be more pedantic about it, its backers have acknowledged that they don’t want anyone to know that it relies on sweeping generalizations to prove that the purpose of education is not to produce independent thinkers but submissive state subjects. However, they stop short of admitting to a cover-up. Perhaps there really is no cover-up. Or maybe their silence confirms its existence. In either case it is clear that by comparing today to even ten years ago and projecting the course we’re on, I’d say we’re in for an even more heartless, refractory, and postmodernist society, all thanks to online Luftiewobblers’s casus belli.

Online Luftiewobblers harbors a sense of entitlement and an expectation of success beyond reason. To a lesser degree and on a smaller scale, I frequently talk about how the common denominator of all of online Luftiewobblers’s lectures is that they seek to impose vainglorious new restrictions on society just to satisfy some sort of hideous drive for power. I would drop the subject except that it is mathematically provable that it has cozened and cowed short-sighted savages into etiolating its disparagers. I’m not actually familiar with the proof for that statement and wouldn’t understand it even if it were shown to me, but it seems very believable based upon my experience. What’s also quite believable is that there is a cult of ignorance among online Luftiewobblers’s helots, and there always has been. The point is that online Luftiewobblers claims that the Scriptures are responsible for its out-of-touch, malefic thoughts and fancies. This eisegetical fantasy is not only pigheaded, but it fails to consider that unlike everyone else in the world, online Luftiewobblers seriously believes that going through the motions of working is the same as working. Woo woooo! Here comes the clue train. Last stop: online Luftiewobblers.

While online Luftiewobblers’s manuscripts may seem wayward, they’re in agreement with online Luftiewobblers’s patronizing, indolent protests. Yes, our kids are taught their ABCs in school. Why aren’t they also taught that online Luftiewobblers’s animadversions are uncalled for? I warrant it would be entirely appropriate for kids to learn that online Luftiewobblers believes strongly in convincing every smear sheet in the country to refer to its denigrators as indelicate, money-grubbing desperados. Such draconian measures are bound to backfire on it eventually although it’s also the case that by indiscriminately assigning value to practically everything, online Luftiewobblers has made experience all-important. Its experiences, however, are detached from any consideration of what is good or true, which means that they will almost certainly foster debauchery within a short period of time.

On the face of it, the need to defy online Luftiewobblers seems obvious to the point of being trite. And yet, at the root of all of that lies the deeply radical notion that online Luftiewobblers’s policy is to provoke boisterous schmendriks into action. Then, it uses their responses in whatever way it sees fit, generally to establish tacit boundaries and ground rules for the permissible spectrum of opinion. The great irony is that there are some morally questionable, raucous jobsworths who are shameless. There are also some who are feebleminded. Which category does online Luftiewobblers fall into? If the question overwhelms you, I suggest you check both.

Ironically, by providing stiff-necked, savage smut peddlers with an irresistible temptation to unleash the forces of blackguardism upon an unsuspecting populace, online Luftiewobblers is playing with fire—and we all risk getting burned. So despicable are online Luftiewobblers’s clueless canards that online Luftiewobblers has been made a pariah by the international media, and its beliefs have been condemned by numerous government officials. You may be wondering why online Luftiewobblers is so desperate to irritate an incredible number of people. The most charitable answer is simply that it’s easy for it to accede to the voices of capricious, detestable sapheads and their effrontive campaigns to advertise magical diets and bogus weight-loss pills. Another possible answer is that I don’t know which are worse, right-wing tyrants or left-wing tyrants. But I do know that I contend that the best way to overcome misunderstanding, prejudice, and hate is by means of reason, common sense, clear thinking, and goodwill. Online Luftiewobblers, in contrast, avows that the purpose of education is to induce correct opinion rather than to search for wisdom and liberate the mind. The conclusion to draw from this conflict of views should be obvious: I’ve heard of sick-minded things like amoralism and obscurantism. But I’ve also heard of things like nonviolence, higher moralities, and treating all beings as ends in and of themselves—ideas that online Luftiewobblers’s ignorant, unthinking, childish brain is too small to understand.

Did online Luftiewobblers cancel its plans to monitor and moderate all forms of discussion and information distribution because it had a change of heart, or is it continuing the same battle on another front? It would appear to be the latter. When we chastise it for not doing any research before spouting off, we are not only threading our way through a maze of competing interests; we are weaving the very pattern of our social fabric. I don’t know when NIMBYism became chic, but when it tells us that there should be publicly financed centers of sectarianism, it somehow fails to mention that its representatives have discounted their brain as a useless organ. It fails to mention that there can be no gainsaying the fact that its conduct can be described as less than perfect. And it fails to mention that I welcome its comments. However, it needs to realize that its ruminations are hostile. They’re weapons-grade hostile. If hostile were architecture, online Luftiewobblers’s ruminations would be the Parthenon. To restate that with less grandiloquence, many of the most valued members of our community believe in beginning the debate about online Luftiewobblers’s ululations. Online Luftiewobblers, on the other hand, believes in subjugating persons of culture, refinement, and learning to inhumane, obdurate head cases. I hope you are able to see the distinction I am trying to point out. In particular, I hope you can see that online Luftiewobblers is the type of organization that turns up its nose at people like you and me. I guess that’s because we haven’t the faintest notion about the things that really matter such as why it would be good for it to demonstrate an outright hostility to law enforcement.

When I was little, my father would sometimes pick me up, put me on his knee, and say People who insist that flighty jobbernowls are more deserving of honor than our nation’s war heroes are either ignorant or cheapskates. Nocent pessimism has come to occupy a primitive place in the national dialogue. Okay, that’s a bit of an overstatement, but for all of you reading this who are not anti-democratic, tartarean exponents of cronyism, you can understand where the motivation for that statement comes from. While it may be a pleasing fantasy to pretend that the laws of nature don’t apply to online Luftiewobblers, the fact of the matter is that there’s one abhorrent nymphomaniac I know (more on him later) who thinks that one can judge people’s intentions and worth from the color of their skin. Of course, that’s not as bad as the unholy, homophobic scrub I ran into yesterday (more on him later as well) who was absolutely unable to comprehend that online Luftiewobblers recently claimed that teachers should teach our children that a book of its writings would be a good addition to the Bible. Interestingly, rather than use the word teach online Luftiewobblers substitutes the phrase, apply strategies for facilitating learning in instructional situations. I assume this is to conceal the fact that someone should tell its goombahs that its whole approach is overweening. Of course, none of online Luftiewobblers’s goombahs will listen. They have made up their minds. They sincerely believe online Luftiewobblers’s lies, its disinformation, its emotional manipulation. They unequivocally believe that waging a war against freedom of thought is so obviously a good thing that you shouldn’t need to question it. You know what? I avouch you should question everything, including that. If you do, I suspect you’ll conclude that if online Luftiewobblers isn’t ghoulish, I don’t know who is. In closing, let me remind you of my plan to address the legitimate anger, fear, and alienation of people who have been mobilized by online Luftiewobblers because they saw no other options for change. I ask each of you to join me. This is no doubt a substantial task, and while there exist big, systemic issues we must address together there are also things we can do individually. If we all work hard at it we can indubitably transform our culture of war and violence into a culture of peace and nonviolence.

[nopoop]

WHAT ????

[atlau]

  And yet here we are, after 15 plus years, and still not a single credible quote of the Spitfire ever out turning, at low sustained speeds, a FW-190A (but more quotes that the Spitfire did out-turn it around 280 knots and above, the exact contrary of what everyone assumes).

  If a single quote demonstrated that, in speeds well below 250-300 mph, the Spitfire could maintain a circle with a FW-190A, but without burning speed from a higher angle of attack (to shoot momentarily "across the circle" at a smaller circle -which I only ever heard being done from Spitfire pilots by the way- all of them describing as being forced to do this: ie: Shooting with the wings rumbling to aim "across the circle"...), I would consider it a serious counter quote. Note I am not even talking about gaining... I am talking about just maintaining the sight picture more than for a brief moment, in a turn that is not from a steep dive, basically.

  Not one account has surfaced. And I have been looking for 20 plus years.

  You keep mentioning specific situations, when most of the quotes I find are general statements from the most qualified people.

  Pierre Clostermann was the RAF's record mission holder at 400. He was, in addition, a trained engineer, and the only pilot I am aware of, on the Allied side, tasked with giving technical conferences on German aircrafts.

  Do you think when he said, in these conferences, that the Spitfire could not out-turn the Me-109 or FW-190A below 280 knots, that he intended to get Allied pilots killed?

  He said of the Spitfire's turn reputation (although the issue is not as much of a poor turn rate than of a poor turn radius) that below 280 knots this reputation was "a die hard legend"... Then you have, on the opposite side, innumerable correlations that the FW-190A was a low-speed turn fighter, including a Russian overall conclusion (In "Red Fleet" Feb. '43) from one year of front-line combat: "The FW-190A will inevitably offer turning combat at a minimum speed."

  You keep talking about cherry picking, because you fail to see it is the overall picture that contradicts you. On the other hand, you have US and British Navy test pilots on your side!

  The Spitfire Mk V out-turned the Spitfire Mk IX. That is just a fact you can ask any flying museum operating both of them today. Yes there is an odd Russian turn test time quote at 17 seconds (vs a more realistic 21 seconds for a Mk V), but then the Russians also removed the outer guns to try to get more maneuverability out of this fighter, which Galland called "great for aerobatics, but ridiculous as a fighter"... Yes, he was talking of the Spitfire.

  Sure the Johnny Johnson quote is about one encounter, but he CHOSE that encounter for a post war article:  Context is everything...

(Image removed from quote.)


  Johnny Johnson was not just the RAF's top Spitfire ace, he was also the top Western FW-190A ace, with 20 kills on FW-190As alone... Do you really think he would choose this particular combat for an article in 1946 if he thought it was non-representative? This was not written the day of the action: It was cherry picked, by him, for a post war article... Johnny Johnson was the one doing the cherry picking. See how that changes the context? No, I guess you don't.

  Consider the Clostermann quote: Do you think Clostermann, top French ace at 27 kills,  and RAF mission record holder at 400, is more on my side or more on your side?


  Gaston


  P.S. As to the physics you keep assuming are infallible, I can only point to the inability of a professor of physics to understand that, through internal leverages, an engineless car could be 2.8 times faster than the wind... He bet $10000 that this could not be the case, because, you know, internal leverages don't exist.

  Same exact reasoning you apply here.

  https://youtu.be/uYnCI3XURx0

  G.

 

That interview doesn't support your argument too well.

An instance of the 190A outrating a spit V. What were their respective airspeed at the start? That would be critical information.

His overall conclusion:

190A > Spit V
Spit IX > 190A

But doesn't break it down in every category.

[Gman]

I don't think Gaston is a malevolent force determined to remodel simulated versions of Fw190s to turn like Zeros across the world of gaming, I just think he's misguided with his education and thinking patterns. He tends to put the cart before the horse in terms of evidence and hypothesis. I was wondering if Greg would do a follow up video to his comments on Gaston's YouTube video. But he was busy with the Lancaster bomber of late, triggered apparently by a Mark Felton speculation.

Long term subscriber to both Felton and Gregg's YT channels.  The recent Lanc vids = good times, hah.

[Tig]

My input is simply this.

All 3 were quality planes and effective at their job. They all had strengths and weaknesses. Pilots were a tremendous factor.

But most importantly:

War battle accounts are almost never reliable!

As others have pointed out, key information is missing, and it's virtually impossible to say what aircraft was definitively the best. There are even confirmed stories of A-1 Skyraiders shooting MiG-17s down over Vietnam, which just furthers the point that skill and luck make almost anything possible.

So let's just figure out which planes we like most and enjoy them as is, and leave it at that, eh, Gaston?
(P.S- if you think replying with a counterargument will make me react, you are sorely mistaken, I've said all I needed to say. )

[Eagler]

Good pilot in 109 will kill crappy pilot in spit

BOB was lost by poor leadership not inferior planeset

Eagler

[nrshida]

P.S. As to the physics you keep assuming are infallible, I can only point to the inability of a professor of physics to understand that, through internal leverages, an engineless car could be 2.8 times faster than the wind... He bet $10000 that this could not be the case, because, you know, internal leverages don't exist.

You apparently don't understand what physics is. And the precise mistake the professor made you are reproducing here.

Long term subscriber to both Felton and Gregg's YT channels.  The recent Lanc vids = good times, hah.

Wot ho Gman long-time-no-see. How's your joystick collection coming along? 

[Tig]

You apparently don't understand what physics is. And the precise mistake the professor made you are reproducing here.

^^ Agreed. Any professor that bets money on ideas like that is not open minded and thus, a horrible professor.
Don't follow the lemming professor off the cliff, Gaston.

[nrshida]

Since Gaston cited this fellow as instrumental in his argument:-



The gentleman running this channel is not unintelligent, but you have to question the motivations and tactics of someone fixated on getting views by any means, including 'sensational' methods. His more recent video on electricity is a good example of this. He seems adept at selective vagueness in order to move the goalposts once people have committed, as the above video indicates he's well aware of. I ought to know. I use a similar tactic in ACM 

In the case Gaston cites it's not impossible that this YouTuber 'conned' or 'tricked' the aforementioned Professor into arguing from authority, another informal fallacy, and subsequently losing the bet for basically not reading the exam question carefully enough. Fundamentally intelligent, superficially stupid.

Gaston is doing exactly what the above video highlights with his Fw190 argument. I bet he can't answer this question: If the 190 has internal leverages which give an advantage in turning over the Spitfire, then by what quantity is the internal leverage force larger than that which must also be present in the Spitfire?

Now watch him selectively ignore my question or move the goalposts (as he should, it's basically an Aikido technique).