Spit IIa

[310_cibule]

Originally Posted by Whiski

May have been beaten to death but still not proven to be over modeled. Nor have the 109's been proven to be under modeled. Have they been tested using specs gained from a well known sources with results to back either claim?
Whiskey

It was. By the Blues

[Hellbender]

Question that arises in that context for me: Did the historical Spit IIa had a better climbing rate than the 109 E-4 ? Can´t find any proper info on that in wiki. It just says that the IIa had a better climb rate than the Mk I but was it better in the end than the 109 concernign climbing rate ??

[Redroach]

Quite simple: Many, too many people in these forums think of themselves as a unique snowflake and are completely convinced that they have something to contribute or to prove that the rest of the world seems to conspire on to keep it secret. Thus, non-existent issues will be taken up and defended, and promoted, even if contradicted repeatedly - (objective) truth is of no concern to those people.
Its something like an OCD, really.

see also
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning...3Kruger_effect

[310_cibule]

Originally Posted by Redroach

Quite simple: Many, too many people in these forums think of themselves as a unique snowflake and are completely convinced that they have something to contribute or to prove that the rest of the world seems to conspire on to keep it secret. Thus, non-existent issues will be taken up and defended, and promoted, even if contradicted repeatedly - (objective) truth is of no concern to those people.
Its something like an OCD, really.

see also
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning...3Kruger_effect

Absolutely!