User talk:Minorhistorian

PLEASE NOTE: My commitments elsewhere will mean that my response times here may be slow for the next several months.

---

Have you get a look to that links above? fashinating, isn't? One thing about Spit ex-AMI: after their weared airframe were phased out between 1950-52, 30 were totally refurbished and sent to HHA. Later, in 1954, HHA sent them to Birmanya. So go figure, IF a fighter's airframe is well preserved, Spitfire is second to none in service life. After all, they still flies. About the accidents, they could had been (maybe with Macchi too, at least Spit weren't victim of some nasty vices like in MC.200), but they had been surely very few, since i didn't heard about none of them. In 22,000 produced, this not wonders me too much, BTW. --Stefanomencarelli (talk) 06:21, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Partire è un po' morire

Grazie, ma "Partire è un po' morire", come si dice in Italia. I wish you all the best as well... regards from S.P.Q.R. --Gian piero milanetti (talk) 11:04, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Hallo... How is life going, MiniHistorian? Please could you have a look please on my last contribs on Spitfire page... I worry that I could write something not in good english.... saluti --Gian piero milanetti (talk) 09:20, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

thanks for answer... I am glad to do something for the article... in fact I have some more stuff about post war Spitfire... I will put something more but please try to check it my english!!

regards!!!!!--Gian piero milanetti (talk) 17:13, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Greets

No problem. Onward and upwards. Dapi89 (talk) 13:03, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Noted. But is is true - on every article. But I appreciate the concern. Dapi89 (talk) 07:59, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

That deserves a big LOL. Dapi89 (talk) 10:45, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Dodge WC54

Hi, I've just created the article and would like to invite you or anyone else you know who is interested in the subject to edit it and help it grow. I'm pleased to find that you are a modeller too, I'm in the process of painting a model of the WC54 and was surprised that it did not have an article, while flatulist does. Brutaldeluxe (talk) 23:22, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

No worries, it was just nerves as it is the first article I've started. It now looks alright, it got around 400 hits so far so I guess there really was a need for an article on the WC54. I'm building the one from Academy in 1:72, I specialise in 1:72 North African Campaign models. Recently bought some oil paints and I'm still hesitant to use them, as I think that it's quite easy to overdo it with the weathering sometimes. Going to Tankfest at Bovington tank museum on Sunday, so if you require any pics I'll put them on the commons for you. Brutaldeluxe (talk) 22:17, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Re: Use of self-published websites?

I have replied to your post at my talk page. CIreland (talk) 12:13, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Re: Macchiing around

Copy/edit form my tlak page: "I see you're still cleaning up after me! There is still a lot of work neded on the C.202 page; I'm reluctant to delete too much, including Visconti's claim of two Spitfires lest I tread on some sensative toes (eg: I decided to pull back on imposing too much on Gian Milanetti's work because I have been causing him some unintended frustration). Personally I think the paragraph on the action belongs on Visconti's page with perhaps a general comment about his claims as a Macchi pilot in the C.202 article. I'll leave that to your good judgement.

On to something more vexing; as you are probably aware I have once again been at loggerheads with Kurfust - I admit this is partly my fault and I could have handled things better; however he continues to insist on using self-published websites as a source, when he insists that others stop using them, and contrives to bait me with ridiculous comments. Personally I think they are more of an embarresment to KF than they are to me. All I can do right now is let it ride and continue to attempt to bring some order to the disputed articles. I have removed as many of the websites I have used in the past and replaced them with secondary, published references where possible. Any other thoughts on referencing? Minorhistorian (talk) 12:53, 27 June 2009 (UTC)"

Hello again, we haven't talked in awhile, but nice to get back in touch. As to the Macchi C. 202, I agree that a great deal of commentary is related to individuals who flew the type and would be better placed in a biographical article. That type of focus needs to be applied to other articles on Italian wartime aircraft; somewhat of the historical revisionist tract I fear is still going on.

In regards to the other conflab, you have probably answered your own questions sufficiently as on reflection, you have made some valid observations as to both parties' love-hate relationship. Providing verifiable and authoritative references is always the "bugaboo" of academic writing. The only thing possible is to adhere to standards and good practice in terms of seeking validation. The Wikiwonderland rules do not often have any bearing in the outside world especially in publishing as first person, second and third person accounts are routinely utilized. Talk later... FWiW Bzuk (talk) 13:37, 27 June 2009 (UTC).

Salve Minihistorian

how is it going? I need your help!!! Could you help me please? As i am watching parts of the italian page of Beurling... I have translatd it from some books but there are some words that I dont understand, even with the dictionary... may I quote you the parts I am not sure to understand well? They are from Glancey "Spitfire". About Beurling, he writes...: "If jumped from behind, he would pull back on the stick of his Mk Vc Spitfire so hard that the aircraft would enter a violent stall, flick over and spin... (what is flick over, to turn upside down?)Or he would ram both aileron and rudder into a sudden and violent turn, causing his Spitfire To flip over and drop like a stone." Again, what is "Flip over"? What does it mean, exactly? thanks for your eventual help!! saluti da Roma gian piero

--93.148.101.2 (talk) 16:00, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Grazie, very interesting and very useful... "Voltafaccia" means that somebody totally changes his behaviour towards you... we dont use in plane slang... but I have some doubt that what they say could be true, that Beurling could do such a 180 degrees turn to face an opponent on his tail... unless opposed to a very green pilot... You know... I was reading a part of Brian Nolan Biography about him, Hero (sic!), and I discovered that: "One of my can shells caught him (a Macchi 202 pilot, probably tenente colonnello Aldo Quaranotti) in the face and blew his head right off. It was a great view anyway, the red blood down the white fuselage. I must say it gives you a feeling of satisfaction when you actualy blow their brains out." Do you understand why I called him a killer and not a pilot? But I am afraid we could not write this kind of things in his page, right? :)

saluti da roma —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gian piero milanetti (talk • contribs) 12:16, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

ANI

I can see this has been going on since 2005. Kurfurst is obviously has an agenda - know we know (by the evidence provided) it extends well beyond wikipedia. Dapi89 (talk) 13:34, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Licence Check

Hi Minor, as to your query on my talk page, absolutely, I'll be your wingman here. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 12:14, 3 July 2009 (UTC).

Cheers for helping. It may be strangely fortunate but I'll be very busy this week. On Monday I shall be visiting Kew. I might have the time and opportunity to secure some interesting information for you if you care to make a wishlist (re Aircraft of the BoB). Dapi89 (talk) 15:22, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Hi. I just need things crystal. Would AVIA 10/282 discussing the 5th, 7th and 9th (dates, 2/4/40, 18/5/40 and 7/8/40) Meetings of the Coordination of Oil Policy be of interest to you?

Would No. 611 (21 March 1940), No 74 (16 March 1940), No 602 (16 February 1940), No 611 (26 June 1940), No 609 (28 June 1940), No 151 Squadron Operations Record Book, (16 February 1940) be of any interest? - in which they discuss the use of 100 octane?

If so I can get them, copy them, post them on wiki' or send them to you. If there is anything else specific that you want, let me know within the the next 36 hours of the message (its currently 20:55 GMT). Cheers. Dapi89 (talk) 19:56, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

NA

I got my hands on Avia 10/282, but had little time to copy them. But I can confirm all of what is said is there is present. I will be going back down on 20th anyway, so I can do it then. I did secure the said squadron files, which were all on microfiche. How would you like them? If you want the direct AIR digits I can mail them to you. If there is anything that springs to mind in the meantime, you can always ask. Dapi89 (talk) 18:47, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Bf-109's interesting issues (IMHO)

Hi. I would say some consideration about Bf-109. It seems that his main weakness were : undercarriage gear; 2-short range and 3-lack of enough armament. It was so even planned to replace the aircraft with G.55, that had all that. But one thing is not clear to me: had Germans considered to implement in the Bf-109 design that futures? G.55 failed because it was too costly and too slow to enstablish the production, but there were plans to upgrade the Bf-109 designs? What wonder me, it's the size: Bf-109G was almost as big that MC.205V, but this latter had 2 MG151 with 500 rds and two 40 lts tanks. Had Bf-109 had that wings, he could solve all of his problems (or almost all, at least). FW-190 was just a little bigger, but it had 4 MG150 with 750 rds. But what wonder me more, is that Bf-109 with bigger wings existend really, the T version. And even more, the sum of the modiphics need for the Bf-109 to be an updated fighter already existed in 1941: the Ki-61 Hien, from 1943 with 20 mm guns (as soon they were available). This fighter had a sort of DB-601, but despite his weight, he handled well and was faster than Bf-109E (except in a climb, after all it weighted around 7.500 lbs). So i wonder if for the Bf-109 was ever planned to adopt this solutions, just logical to match the needs. Instead, neither G.55/55LW/56 was produced, nor Bf-109G had the necessary modiphics (it seems that the undercarriage gear is the less touchable part of an aircraft..)

Second issue: why Bf-109G became so heavy? Bf-109G was far heavier than Bf-109F, but it had only 150 hp more, and even less if it was restricted to 2.600 RPM. What's caused that weight increase? I would add, if Gustav was so heavily re-engeneered, then it would had been a lost occasion to make bigger modiphics (the ones above: wide U/C, additional tanks and internal wing guns).

Third: about internal wing guns: it sound bizarre to me, that Bf-109G hadn't space for MG151 (that yes, affected the handling in their pod, but only slightly the max speed), while HA 1112 Buchon had 20 HS 404 in the wings, just that Gustav needed. It sounds bizarre to me, also because HS were bigger than MG.

Excuse me, but since more and more these issues are raised about Bf-109 evolution (the Gustav was the first one that wasn't liked, too heavy for the original layout), it would be interesting to know if there are explaination for that above.--Stefanomencarelli (talk) 11:44, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Yes, but what about the issues above? BTW, the increasing difficult to edit anything has really bored me to help in this site, even with obvious comparasations that are found to be 'POV' or OR (but nobody says nothing when Spitfire is compared to other aircraft, it's quite strange..). I am even rollbacked because i dared to make 2 kb edit in a plot movie because 'too details' (2 kb..). If there is a manner to sink Wikipedia, it could be the weight of burocreacy.--Stefanomencarelli (talk) 13:29, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

---

I hope you will do not it. It's so interesting to read about fighter comparations. My Take Off encyclopedia has 3 numbers about Spit vs Bf-109 and this was a really interesting reading, i wuold be ready to kill to know this stuff.. My tough would be to extend, not remove, these stuff, after all it's what almost all the aviation fans want to know. Without relativizing the fighter's performances you would be clueless about them.

BTW, let's return to your post, since i am pretty happy to have someone that at 20,000 km away show how the planet is small with modern tecnologies.

Bf-109s, maybe them had not much re-engeneering to became the powerful HA-1112. What a plane! The two HS-404 shows how the Bf-109 could be made with a proper armament and without much modifics (that we don't know in details, but they were very few). The max speed was about 674 kmh, and the climb almost .. 30 m.sec. Far better than the G.59 (ex-G.55, with the same Merlin engine), it would be a real winged rocket. It's a pity that LW had not them, expecially in 1940 (in the movie 'the battle of England'). And they shows how the potential of Bf-109 was not ended in 1945 (and even better than G.55, i'd say).

My idea about Bf-109s armament: if the wing could withstand with MG FF/M (i read they were good up to 12 g), i'd grab them: always better than nothing, expecially if you have a belt feeding, like the last Type 99 (100-120 rds). And more, you say about the weight saving for g-resistence: but the gunpod with MG 151 were heavy as well, even more maybe than the MG itselves, so it's not the real problem. Bf-109G were even tested -and used- with 30 mm MK 108, go figure if Bf-109 would not hold the MG151.

My funny idea: if the Bf-109G had 2 MG FF/M plus the armament in the nose it would had been OK. Another configuation, even more funny: if the wings had the capability to hold a MG 17, well, they could have instead two MG81. Thus a Bf-109G could have, let's say 6 MG81 (in the nose as well) and a MG151/20 or MK108. I'd grab this solution, it would have been spectacular (10,000 RPM overall). Another possibility: the excellent MG131: 2 in the wings, two in the nose, the MG151 et voila. Or even better, two MG FF or MG131 in the wings, one MG131 and one MG17 or 81 in the nose, to leave free one of the nose's sides (forward view), until the nose would be re-engeneered as happened with Bf-109K (no MG bulges). Or, even, the MG151/15 in lieu of the other wings armament. All by all, Bf-109 in Spain showed how it could take even the Hisso guns, so it would had been no problem. Can you imagine a Il-2 combat with a six-MG-81 Gustav? A lot of fun.

So, given all, some wing possibilities: 4 MG81 -2 MG131-2 MG FF/M-2 MG151/15-2 MG151/20-2 HS-404 (..).

My guess: if Germans were too afraid about G.55 production, why they simply gave to the Bf-109 design some few innovation, as a bigger wing and a wider undercarriage, and even more fuel? The funny side is that this aircraft already existed: ..the Ki-61, a Bf-109 with 20 m2 wing, internal wing guns and 550 lt of fuel. Give to him/her/it the original DB-601-605 engine and it would had done a hell of fighter, since Ki-61 turned almost like a Zero (equal to a FM-2 Wildcat).

Do you know how italians made DB-601? 30-40 kg heavier and 30-40 hp less powerful, this allowed enough reliability. This speak a volume about the technology level in Italy, even in the experienced Alfa Romeo, a supposed master for high-performance engines. Japs did an engine 30 kg lighter, this proof wrong, if they resisted to the tentation to make a lighter engine..

BTW, i think Bf-109, basically, should had been modified so, it's funny that FW-190 had four 20 mm and 750 rds in the wings, while Bf-109G had none.

Another example that i like, the D.520, with a wing rougly equal to the Bf-109s one, but with 120 lts tanks and four MG. Not bad, expecially because the D.520 had, like the P-36, very light flight controls, even at high speed (830 kmh), better than the ones of the Bf-109E. And D.520 has 1,250 km endurance: i'd grab it instead of the Bf-109 for the BoB, if i could decided so.

BTW, the Germans wasted their engines in a manner not understandable: why hell they had decided to use the DB-603 with Me.410 and other junks, when they could go with the FW-190 design and make a ferocius fighter for all the altitude? I don't know. They decided finally, only when it was too late.

Finally, the last thing. I have descovered that yes, German thinked even how to improve Bf-109 in the way i imagined.. The first step was the Bf-109T, with a larger wing. One of them shot down the first B-17C, i bet that it would had been advantaged at altitude because his wing. The next step was the Bf-109H, with a larger wing and over 14,000 m ceiling. Finally, the big-wing design was evolved in the Me.155, a wide undercarriage design (finally..). But BFW had so much problems, that the design was sold to B&V and became the BV155, another marvellous aircraft that never became a true danger for Allieds. So this show how much the Bf-109 could be stretched if there was the willing to do it. I wonder how hell, with Bf-109G, designers weren't inclined to transform the undercarriage and make the wing larger. This would had been the right step, without mixing with the G.55 production or the Me.209/309 and more models (a Me.209 with DB-603 would had been a real rocket..). Germans, i think, did really a lot of mistakes (another wasthe second bomber generation, none of them run properly: Ju-188, Do-217, Me.210/410 etc) in wartime.

Talekaakka-kaie-ka-kka-haaka-ka. Or whetever else.--Stefanomencarelli (talk) 23:17, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Macchi 202

Hallo Minishitorian this is a quote from a maltese book with foreword of Laddie Lucas... who are we (you9 to judge the work of true published historians? You see it is always the same old story, when you find something that you dont like, yo start to question... the text say "few others " etc... obviosly the author was speaking of fighter available at that time, in 1942... --Gian piero milanetti (talk) 16:02, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

il forte Macchi

Buon giorno... It is always interesting to read what you write... but what i noted most is the you several times write: "What you write is etc." Well in fatc i just did no write, I quoted... literally! There is not a word of my own! Are you serious when you ask me: which other planes could broke etc? YOu know that it dont work that way... I mean, who are we to question about what historians write? We decide if they write well or note? ANd then we decide what to write in the article? How? That's a very slippery slope... The historian take the responsability of what he writes, it is not my task to add: they could break in a dive those planes: x, y, z... I dont put the bias on you but i note that some people sometimes there become touchy when I start to quote something positive about italian planes or pilot and that is not revisionism like bzulk says if i do it quoting anglosaxon authors that could not be suspected to have special simpathy for italian planes... thanks for the links i will see them but i prefere usually books and here in Malta I havfe plenty of interesting historical books and I am going to buy some more... About my student i always tell them the more versions about the fact... planes or not... but I dont accept never the typical idea of italian that we still can read in some books. I read in a book off a RAF pilot that was in Malta something like: "Well, the Italians pilot, were... Italians! And with this word i say all of it!" or something like... Well if not to accept these words is to be revisionist, i am proud to be revisionist! Gesù, povera Italia!! Saluti da Malta, the fortress-island! gian piero —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gian piero milanetti (talk • contribs) 05:26, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Ta 'Qali

"Merhba" from Ta 'Qali, Beurling and Laddie Lucas airport.... --Gian piero milanetti (talk) 17:13, 24 July 2009 (UTC)