[6S.Manu]

Originally Posted by Glider

I do consider myself to be an amature historian, which is why I always have some substance behind my theory and statement. It may not be everything everyone want but there is something.

"Some substance" is not a fact. "Researching for the detail and mandatory verification of the source are the primary rules of an historian", it's been said by one of my friends (historian).

Until there're unanswered questions then there's no fact. If have the right to doubt of it if it's not clear and so I ask you for detail.

Can I? Or I have been labled as naysayer? Or a Blue pilot who want to pork the Spitfire?
Don't worry... when we'll be talking about the 109 I'll post questions about that too if the "fact" are not detailed.

Please focus on the fact that I questioned also the pilots' experience and the airplane's conditions during the RAF mockfight.

I don't know your opionion about that, but it state that some pilots were not using the plane at it's full performance because they were afraid.

Now why should them be afraid if the plane was easy to fly? Could it be that those planes where not good as the others, or maybe the plane has a characteristic that they wanted to avoid. The author seems to claim the latter, but he says "probably" (IIRC)...

Of course the poster who want to picture they favourite plane as the better had claimed that the pilot's on the 109 was high skilled (and I can't doubt it, by logic) and the outturned ones were worser... Now please tell me why I'm the bad guy formaking questions while the "it's so because I tell it" guys are the good one?

As opinion the one about "easy to fly" means that it was easy to take in combat... no proof about that but people, you too, keep claiming it as gospel truth.
This "can" easily be the reason of that statement: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-11004370

So many extreme manouvres... note that I've written "can"... it's a theory but not less meaningful as the "easy to take in combat" one.

Originally Posted by Glider

Lets take the example of the bending of the wings. Crumps says this happened a lot and there were piles of wings to be repaired. My belief is that this happened in late 1944 when Spitfires were being used for tassks way beyond what they were designed for. I produced two different sources both of which are very clear and invite Crumpp to supply his evidence that this happened in the BOB. Result silence.

I've not the responsibility of that claim, why should I find a source?

Anyway you keep missing the point: it's not "how many times it happened", it's "if it can happen".

Do I need a document to state that in most of the fights the victim was unaware of the enemy? Many reports seem to prove it. Of course we'll never have the right number but using "logic" we can define that most of the time the pilots didn't use their plane at its structural limits.

Now I ask to you: do you think they fought as the players are used to do in this sim?

Take the doc about the mock fight in which some RAF pilots could not outturn the 109 becouse of the fear to spin. Now reproduce the same mock fight in sim: experience makes me say that an average pilot (one who actually understood the limits of the plane) will always outturn the 109.

In this sim most pilots fly as there is no tomorrow (since they are allowed to do it, as to fly at 7km with the open cockpit): logically they do critical manouvres far more than the real pilots, so the issue of a plane has to be more evident...

So do you see why I claim that your document (Mr.Newton's interview) is not helpful here? First it's incomplete since it's the number of reported accidents, not all the accidents

Originally Posted by Glider

Its more than you have put forward. You have a theory but nothing behind it

Ah! It's called intellectual honesty!

You posted that interview claiming this: "To get a feel for how fragile the SPitfire was the following is a posting I found which breaks the losses bytype. Remembering that 20,000+ Spts were built during WW2 the numbers are pretty low".

You were stating that only 46 spitifires were lost for structural failure on more than 22000!!!

Not knowing if the accidents over the sea were to be investigated by the AAIB (as I honestly and correctly asked), but it's easy to think they weren't (as other thinks it's a logic thing)... so 46 on 22000 is not an attendible number, while you stated it was the true one.

This is the reason I posted that it as small sample of the total Spitfire lost. And I remain with this convinction.

Originally Posted by Glider

Possible but very unlikely. The reports are procduced during the war, the book many years later.

And on what are based the books? Does the author invent the numbers or he did a research for documents like we do?

You stated that 2 books reported the same numbers for which reason? Nobody here claimed you to be a liar, you had not to defend yourself.

If the source is about a small sample of accidents (as this one) or unattendible (and this's not the case) you can report it in 20 books... it remains about a small sample of accidents.

Why did you not quoted the part about the different numbers on the other book?
I report it again: "3 books: one has different numbers... Which ones are the corrected numbers?"

Can you answer? Do you still claim the 46/22000?

I hope you can anwser, or I start thinking that you can be one of those amatour historian (luckly) expert on spreading disinformation bacause of a personale agenda: I hope you are not, at first you impressed me as an nice honest guy.

Originally Posted by Glider

There is no way they can know for certainty as to what happened in some cases over german held areas. However you accuse them of ignoring accidents which is insulting and you do it without evidence which compounds the insult.
You are also factually wrong. The vast majority of Typhoon losses due to the loss of the tail happened over Germany areas but this wasn't ignored. The pilots were aware of what was going on, it was reported and the issue was addressed. To pretend that Spits breaking up would be ignored is clearly wrong and without evidence again insulting.
You may well question my approach to historical facts but I would never, ever, say such a thing without something to support what I said.
I await your supporting evidence with some interest, note evidence not theory. It shouldn't be difficult as you believe it happended so often finding an unexplained loss that was put forward and then ignored should be straight forward.

Accusing what? I only asked if those accidents were ignored by the AAIB (not reported to them by the RAF).. some other posters honestly claimed that it's very probable that those accidents were not reported to AAIB since without wreckage were could not be an investigation.
I asked for it before and you, as the claimer of the AAIB's 46/22000 should have given an answer, researching instead of quoting a text without asking yourself the accuracy of the data (not on AAIB reported accidents, but on all the entire picture of the Spitfire lost in an accident).

Insulting? I'm starting to losing my patience with these accusations... please, Glider, remove them.

Did the Typhoon's issue have been reported to the AAIB? Do you know it? Where's the evidence?
I honestly asked if the wreckages were necessary to the AAIB: nobody said "yes, look at this document". So, until then, it's really probably that Typhoon's issue oversea were not investigated by the AAIB.

I'm questioning your evidences, I've not to prove anything that I've not questioned before. I'm playing the devil's advocate.

Originally Posted by Glider

If you want that then I suggest you go and look for it. Of course you can have a theory but a theory it remains unless and until you can support it. The AAAIB can only look at things that are referred to them, it always was and should always be that any unexplained accident should be reported to them. You forget that its in the interest of the pilots and crew to report these incidents as their lives are on the line

I don't forget anything!... I asked for it before BECAUSE OF this matter!

Originally Posted by Glider

Its not a small sample it all the incidents that were reported to them. If you believe that there were others that were ignored then support that statement. Again without evidence its a theory without support

I've never stated it.. please don't turn around putting words in my mouth. I've never

I'm claiming that it's a small sample compared to all the Spitfires lost for accident during the WW2 since all the things covered before. I'm not the one who claimed the 46/22000

The only real insulting thing it's you asking for evidence to the others when they actually question yours.
I don't have to proof anything, it's you who has to answer.

Yours it's a nice way to support facts: "if I have a little evidence than it's as I say".

Originally Posted by Glider

Or is that pilot reports, test pilot reports, test establishments reports and official accidents reports that are to be ignored because they are inconvenient?

As I said before you miss the point of the thread... sure reports are usefull to understand some issues, but the clear evidences of that issues are more difficult to be found since those pilots have care of their life and it's not really probable that they flew in the way most of IL2's players do.

Look, before the implementation of the structural damage in IL2 1946 I used to dive at 900km/h pulling up very sharply... It's irrealistic and I'm happy that DT developed this feature.

It's so wrong to have also the elevator sensibility as an plane's issue as clearly warned in the pilot's note?

Originally Posted by Glider

I don't hear Crumpp, yourself or anyone else demanding that the Spitfire be easy to land, easy to take off, be faultless in a turn and always turning inside the Me109 as did the German pilots and test establishments or are you in favour of such realistic factors

And here we go with the accusation of be Pro-Blue and Anti-Red!!! Good job! Glider, I thought you were different... In this message board it's impossible to be objective.

It so sad that many fans have to be always the ones against the others...

Your question: IMO the Spitfire landing is good as is it since ALL the plane in IL2 are easy to land.

Do I want a 109 difficult to land? As I stated before, many times, in other threads, I DO!!!
As I do a 190 that flips for a the accellerated stall...

Have I to put it under my sig?