Quote:
Originally Posted by Sutts
He isn't saying the 109 is a hopeless war machine - just that he'd rather have more room, much better visibility and a better chance of surviving a ground flip if the choice was his to make. You can't argue with the facts.
|
My point is, he is "evaluating" this two aircraft based on today's "requirenments". Most of his points are about the comfort and safety, wich in a world war two type of strugle for national survival don't mean squat.
In the case of a ground flip actually the extremely solid frame cannopy of the 109 was a lot safer than most late war bubble sliding canopies.
You analyse fighting machines based on their fighting qualities, not based on pilot comfort. Pilot comfort on a short range fighter are way down the list of requirenments.
There are plenty fighting qualities of the 109 (climb, dive, negative G, Cannons, small, hard to see) that make the 109 of that era a very dangerous oponent for anything in the skies.
This is like some of the "reviews" you see online for fighting guns today.
Oh, the stock doesn't look good, is not very ergonomic, the plastic feels cheap, the collor is off......
It's a fighting gun, damit! Is the fighting qualities like reliability, accuracy, easy to learn and use is what matters. Not the color of the paint.