[Glider]

Originally Posted by 6S.Manu

"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).

I totally agree with your friend. Ask him what he thinks about theories that have no support, I am confident that he will consider it a theory no more and no less.

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.

There is a difference between a question that can be dealt with and one that cannot. Going back to your starting point "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).
You have the question, you do the research, then and only then do you have a position until then its a question.
Lets use an example. You implied that accidents were being ignored, you said it without any supporting evidence and I consider it to be an insult to those involved and its something that I would never say without serious research. I suggest you ask your friend about my approach and see what he says.

You also implied that other organisations might have investigated accidents. Again its a theory one that has no evidence behind it. As far as I am aware there is no other organisation so its a theory no more and no less. If you think there was another organisation then I suggest you look for it.

On both of these points if there is some evidence behind your position then I will spend as long as it takes to find the true position.

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.

I look forward to that. Its also worth noting that on the Me109 vs Spitfire thread my choice for the BOB period was the Me109 so don't put me into the pro Spit camp either

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)...

Some pilots in the front line were probably afraid as they could well be inexperienced, flying a high performance aircraft they may have had as little as 10 hours in, against superior numbers, with in the opposing Me109 a fighter every bit as good as the plane they were flying in.
Those in the test are very interesting and expose the difference between being experienced and skilled. Those nervous were probably experienced those not were skilled. Taking the aircraft to the edge is difficult and demands confidence and skill, they lacked the confidence. All airforces had similar issues, in the Me109 the majority of pilots would not take the turn past the deployment of the leading edge flaps. This is a personal view but its in this area where I believe the RAF lost out by not having a two seat SPit for training. If you have someone in the cockpit who takes you to the edge and shows you that it is safe, what the warning signs are you can grasp it easily. Without it finding the edge is a nervous moment.
Gliders handle in many ways in a similar manner to ww2 fighter. We have buffet as the warning before the stall, the high speed stall and the spinning of different types. The first time you show someone how to spin or the high speed stall they are normally scared to death. Once they get used to the feeling some will do it frequently, its a buzz.

The skilled pilot will always get that extra 5/10% out of the aircraft. I used the example of the Zero and the Hellcat. Most would agree that overall the Hellcat is the better fighter but if S Sakai was in the Zero how would you rate your chances?

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?

TheGerman Test Establishent were very clear in their advice to German pilots. Do not enter a turning fight with the Spitfire or Hurricane. They would not have had a pro RAF stance.

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

This is where we differ. There is an old saying, if it can happen it will. If its easy to reach the limit and crash then the limit will be reached and planes will crash. However the planes didn't crash in any numbers.

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.

Agree

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...

Agree if applied to all aircraft types

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

It is as complete as it can be. No doubt the german authorities had a simiar accident investigation team and they would have similar limitations.
[QUOTE]



[QUOTE=Glider;451098]
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.

It is as good a number as it can be. I stand by the numbers as an indication that they are very low for this type of aircraft. I notice that no one has disagreed with this statement.
No one has any idea as to how many were lost away from the home areas due to structural issues but this is a statement of fact, not a conspiracy theory.

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

fine
[QUOTE]

Originally Posted by Glider

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

He was the investigating engineer at the time, his reports obviously would have been done as the incidents were reported. The M S book was produced years later on an aircraft by aircraft basis, I don't see how one could be based on the other.

No this is all the accidents that were reported to the team. A small sample implies that others were ignored and there is no evidence to support that theory.

There is no other basis for showing a ratio. We do not know how many were lost due to structural losses over the sea or enemy areas. Clearly some would have been but we will never know. Comparing what we know against production is an imperfect ratio. However it is one that we should be able to replicate on other aircraft types and is the only valid approach that I can think of. If you have a better idea then I will take it.

PS I am a nice honest guy

I apologise for any insult totally. I am touchy about people who imply that accidents are ignored by the investigating bodies. My son is a safety Inspector in nuclear establishments and I spent some time in the RN accident Investigation team (only basically as the coffee maker) but I saw how seriously these people take their tasks. There is no evidence that accidents were ignored that I am aware of.

Yes the Typhoon issues were reported and it took a lot of time to find a solution. Wreckage helps and its only fair to add that I was wrong, most happened over the UK.
There were cases where there was little wreckage but tests were still undertaken to try and repeat the situation to find a cause. Probably the best example I can think of was the Halifax. It took some time to identify and sort out its problems re spinning. Most happened on missions and obviously there was little to go on

Nope I always have something to support a case and its not, because I say so.

Pilots notes are there to warn the pilot and err on the side of caution. Good example is the spinning. Early Spit pilots notes banned spinning but did tell the pilot that the plane would recover normally. Later ones allowed spinning but with permission from a senior officer.
The Spit could spin and would recover but they didn't want to see pilots putting planes at risk.
The P47 pilots notes say that you cannot do more than 1/2 a turn when spinning (not my definition of a spin I admit) but again it could spin more than that and recover.
This carried on after the war and probably continues. The Hunter T8 pilots notes say that spinning is banned period, but I have recovered from a couple of spins in one. In reality the Hunter spins and recovers normally as long as you recover in the first two turns. After that is oscillates, you can get disorientated and its time to leave

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.

Its quite possible to be objective and we covered the pro anti bit earlier.

Have I to put it under my sig?

nicely