Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Spitfire vs Bf 109 and F-14 vs Su-27: the difference is always the pilot
The Aviationist ^ | May 31, 2013 | Dario Leone

Posted on 06/02/2013 1:37:47 AM PDT by sukhoi-30mki

Spitfire vs Bf 109 and F-14 vs Su-27: the difference is always the pilot

May 31, 2013

Not always the best aircraft is the one that wins in an air-to-air engagement.

Most of the times it is the training the pilot has received and his/her skills, experience to make the difference: that’s why a well trained pilot with a less capable aircraft can defeat a more powerful plane piloted by a scarcely trained airman.

During World War II two of the most successful fighters of aviation history faced one against the other, in a duel that began over the coasts of Dunkirk and ended on the last days of the war: this two aircraft were the legendary Supermarine Spitfire and its German counterpart, the formidable Messerschmitt Bf 109.

Image credit: RAF BBMF

During the dogfights that raged in the skies several examples of both planes fell into the hands of the opponents giving both the Royal Air Force and the Luftwaffe, the opportunity to test the enemy plane.

The first intact Spitfire Mk I was captured by the Germans during the Dunkirk evacuation and immediately used by the Germans against Bf 109E in mock aerial combat.

The Spitfire, that was test flown by Maj Werner Mölders in persons, which was at the time the leading ace of the Luftwaffe with 25 aerial victories, was fitted with the old two-speed propeller and had a rate of climb inferior to that of the Spitfire Mk I fitted with the constant-speed propeller.

However German pilots discovered that if the pilot pushed down the nose of the Spitfire and applied negative “G”, the carburetor float of the Merlin engine stopped to deliver fuel with the result that the engine cut out.

On the contrary, the Bf 109E did not suffer from the same problem since his Daimler Benz DB 601 was fitted with the fuel injection system. Due to this defect, Mölders thought that, even if the Spitfire had general performance approaching that of the Bf 109, it was not that good as a fighter.

A Messerschmitt was captured intact by the RAF in November 1939, when a Bf 109E was forced down in France and taken to Farnborough for test flights against the Spitfire Mk I.

The results of the test showed that Reginald Mitchell’s fighter at altitudes around 4,000 feet was far superior to the Messerschmitt Me 109E: but the captured Messerschmitt had problems with the engine cooling system and it could not prove its ability to out-climb the Spitfire at most altitudes.

Image credit: USAF

So the British discovered that the Spitfire was better at medium altitude in a turning fight, while the Germans that the Bf 109E was better at high altitude in a high speed combat.

But those trials were valid only up to a point because when these two variants of the fighters faced one against the other was during the air battle over Britain, where the dogfights took place at altitudes between 13,000 and 20,000 feet, the altitude where the escorts for the German bombers were flown: at that height the performance of the two fighters were much closer.

However during the Battle of Britain the German fighters had a slightly advantage due to the high level of training of Luftwaffe pilots: in fact most of them, along with Mölders or Adolf Galland, were extraordinaire pilots who had gained significant experience flying with the Condor Legion during the Spanish Civil War. On the contrary the British pilots were less experienced but they flew in the skies above of their country and they fought to defend it: these two reasons, along with some strategic German mistakes, gave them a lot of motivations and brought the air duels on the same level.

During the war many other variants of these two fighters fell in the hands of each opponents, but another test was conducted early in 1944 by the RAF at Duxford. In 1944 the latest subtype of the Messerschmitt was the Bf 109G (the latest variant of the Bf 109 was the K, but it was built in small numbers and developed too late to play an important role during the war) and one of this kind of Bf 109 was tried against the new and more potent Spitfire Mk XIV powered with the Griffon 61 engine.

The result was that the Spitfire was faster than the Bf 109G at all heights, the rate of climb was the same for the two aircraft around 16,000 feet, while at the other altitudes the Spitfire Mk XIV exceeded the Bf 109G.

50 years later, in the midst of the 1990s, the technology changed the way in which the fighters fought, Air to air combat was still an important part of the training for every pilot of any air force and it is still the better way to understand how an aircraft can perform against those of their counterparts.

Image credit: Sukhoi

During the last decade of the twentieth century one of the deadliest adversary for the western air forces was the Sukhoi Su-27 Flanker.

The Su-27 belongs to the same class of the US F-14 and F-15, but unlike the American fighters it can fly at an angle of attack of 30 degrees and can also perform the “Pugachev Cobra”, an aerobatic maneuver in which the aircraft pitches the nose beyond the vertical at a rate of 70 degrees per second and after that recovers to level flight. Thanks to this maneuver, the Flanker has been the highlight of every air shows from the end of the 80s to the middle of the 90s.

On 20 April this year an article written by Dave Majumdar for Flightglobal DEW Line, talk about Gerry Gallop, a former TOP GUN instructor and an experienced US Navy pilot who flown F-4, F-14A and B, F-15, F-16, F-18 (both Legacy and Super Hornet) and also A-4.

Once Gallop ended its career he became senior vice president and chief operating of Tactical Air Support, a private operator which operated the Su-27 for short time and during this period he had the chance to fly the Flanker.

During one of his sorties over the Ukraine, Gallop was very impressed by the acceleration and by how fast was the Russian fighter at high altitude. The power of its engines, along with its superb aerodynamics and with short range IR missile AA-11 Archer (which in the ‘90s was the best short-range AAM in the world that can be linked to the pilot’s helmet fire control system and is capable to be fired at targets until 45 degrees off the axis of the aircraft: both these capabilities were not possessed by the AIM-9M Sidewinder, the main western short range missile at the time) made of the Su-27 probably the best dogfighter of the 90s, a very tough adversary for every western jet.

When strictly compared to the F-14, the Tomcat is not less fast than the Su -27, but for the American fighter the Flanker is more than a match in a close combat. In fact, against a more maneuverable fighter like the Su-27, the Tomcat is disadvantaged even if the F-14 is a B or a D model powered with the extremely potent General Electric F110-GE-400 engines.

Image credit: U.S. Navy

Sometimes the advantage of an agile adversary can be reduced thanks to the presence of a well trained backseater, but the Tomcat gives the best of itself on long distances where the AIM-54C Phoenix can be used. As explained by some Tomcat drivers, it doesn’t matter how a more agile fighter can get a F-14 in a dogfight, because thanks to Tomcat’s combination of tactics, sensors (such as the F-14D’s AAS-42 which it has a greater range and resolution than the IRST seeker mounted by the Su-27) and weapons every enemy fighter is going to be destroyed at an unparalleled distance.

So, which was the best among these two fighters?

It is very hard to answer to this question, but as explained by the most experienced F-14 pilot, Dale “Snort” Snodgrass, in some ways the Su-27 is superior to the F-14 and to the F-15 while in some others, American fighters are better than the Flanker: but what really makes the difference is how well a pilot is trained.


TOPICS: Foreign Affairs; Germany; News/Current Events; Russia
KEYWORDS: aerospace; f14; spitfire; su27
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-80 next last

1 posted on 06/02/2013 1:37:47 AM PDT by sukhoi-30mki
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: sukhoi-30mki

But with the P51 vs. the Zero, inexperienced pilots were beating experienced Japanese pilots.


2 posted on 06/02/2013 1:44:22 AM PDT by Kevmo ("A person's a person, no matter how small" ~Horton Hears a Who)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: sukhoi-30mki
his/her skills

I wasn't aware of females having a history of success in air combat that justified the inclusion of them as a sex.

3 posted on 06/02/2013 1:59:57 AM PDT by ansel12 (Social liberalism/libertarianism, empowers, creates and imports, and breeds, economic liberals.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: sukhoi-30mki

I was watching the Military Channel and one of the great historical “what ifs” that never took place. That of jet to jet fighter combat in World War II.

The British Gloster Meteor was never in a dog fight with a German ME-262. The British viewed them as too strategic an asset to lose over occupied territory and they were used exclusively to intercept V weapons.


4 posted on 06/02/2013 2:14:42 AM PDT by PittsburghAfterDark
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Kevmo
I think the point of the article is that, ultimately, war is a still a very Human thing. In the end, it is one man against another, but the machines they use do have a bearing. in the case of the P51 vs the Zero, the disparity is very marked. With the correct tactics, it is almost impossible for the P51 to lose, even if the pilots using it are rookies and their opponents are very good.

The most important attribute of a fighter is speed. The P51D was at least 25MPH faster than the Zero at all altitudes. In WW2 air combat terms that is a phenomenal difference, implying obsolescence in the slower fighter. All you need to do in a P51 is climb above the zero and dive down on it, shooting as you go. If you get him, good. If you dont, you do not stop to dogfight (the zero is much better at that - easily more manoeverable than a P51) you just simply continue the dive and accelerate away. The zero will be lucky to even get a short innacurate burst in. Then you climb, and dive down again. Repeat, until no zeroes left. It doesnt require a very experienced pilot to do that, once you know the trick.

5 posted on 06/02/2013 2:18:58 AM PDT by Vanders9
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Vanders9

It was worse than that. The zeros had an engine that pushed their machine to turn right. They also had no maneuverability at high altitude, much like the FW109. There are several instances of P51’s meeting their opponents at high altitude, only to have their opponents fall into uncontrolled flight, while the P51 pilots simply picked them off.

In some ways, it wasn’t very ‘sporting’.


6 posted on 06/02/2013 2:23:28 AM PDT by Kevmo ("A person's a person, no matter how small" ~Horton Hears a Who)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: sukhoi-30mki
Can people stop having airgasms over the Cobra Maneuver? It's impressive at airshows but in combat an aircraft would have to to lose airspeed to do it making themselves a sitting duck.
7 posted on 06/02/2013 2:24:01 AM PDT by Hillarys Gate Cult (Liberals make unrealistic demands on reality and reality doesn't oblige them.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Kevmo
I think the point of the article is that, ultimately, war is a still a very Human thing. In the end, it is one man against another, but the machines they use do have a bearing. in the case of the P51 vs the Zero, the disparity is very marked. With the correct tactics, it is almost impossible for the P51 to lose, even if the pilots using it are rookies and their opponents are very good.

The most important attribute of a fighter is speed. The P51D was at least 25MPH faster than the Zero at all altitudes. In WW2 air combat terms that is a phenomenal difference, implying obsolescence in the slower fighter. All you need to do in a P51 is climb above the zero and dive down on it, shooting as you go. If you get him, good. If you dont, you do not stop to dogfight (the zero is much better at that - easily more manoeverable than a P51) you just simply continue the dive and accelerate away. The zero will be lucky to even get a short innacurate burst in. Then you climb, and dive down again. Repeat, until no zeroes left. It doesnt require a very experienced pilot to do that, once you know the trick.

8 posted on 06/02/2013 2:36:23 AM PDT by Vanders9
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: sukhoi-30mki

Thanks for the posting


9 posted on 06/02/2013 3:17:19 AM PDT by mosesdapoet (Serious contribution pause.Please continue onto meaningless venting no one reads.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: sukhoi-30mki

Sukhoi’s thesis is correct, it’s the pilot that makes the difference (this same principle applies to tank and armored vehicle crews). The best example of this is the two highest scoring squadrons of the Battle of Britain. Those squadrons were 301 and 303 (the Kosciusko Squadron). The Polish pilots made up 10% of the force for the RAF and were flying the older Hurricane Hawkers vice the Spitfire during this period. They scored 40% of the kills against the Luftwaffe. If you want a really good read, check out the book “A Question of Honor” by Lynn Olsen and Stanley Cloud.


10 posted on 06/02/2013 4:05:58 AM PDT by Bill Russell
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: sukhoi-30mki

Another simple comparison of aircraft would have had the Japanese Zeros making mincemeat of the Flying Tiger P-40s.

Didn’t turn out that way in real life.


11 posted on 06/02/2013 4:13:59 AM PDT by DuncanWaring (The Lord uses the good ones; the bad ones use the Lord.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Vanders9

Exactly. Once American pilots learned to use their fighters’ generally superior speed against Zeroes, they became easy kills. Mustangs, Corsairs, and Hellcats still couldn’t out-turn a Zero in a classic dogfight, but they didn’t need to. They dove in at speed, fired quick shots, and extended away, or used that speed to maneuver in the vertical plane to cut inside the Zero’s turn. Or Fw 190s would use their phenomenal rate of roll to quickly change direction against Spitfires and Thunderbolts and get into attack position.

It’s not just all about which fighter could simply out-turn the other in a circling dogfight. That’s just one part of the performance envelope. Look at what the Flying Tigers did with supposedly-inferior P-40s against Zeros at the height of Japanese power in 1942. They played to the Warhawk’s strength—speed, firepower, diving ability—instead of doing what most other American pilots tried at the time, which was to dogfight the Zero on its terms.

}:-)4


12 posted on 06/02/2013 4:15:44 AM PDT by Moose4 (SHALL. NOT. BE. INFRINGED.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: sukhoi-30mki
You're not going to win any dogfight with that first picture of a spitfire- it's a PR, photographic reconaissance variant... no guns. Also , it seems to be one of the later, griffon powered versions.

CC

13 posted on 06/02/2013 4:18:45 AM PDT by Celtic Conservative (tease not the dragon for thou art crunchy when roasted and taste good with ketchup)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: sukhoi-30mki

There was still Adolph Galland’s reply to Göring during the Battle of Britain when der Dicke asked if there was anything he could do to help the Luftwaffe fighter arm. Gallandly famous replied, “Ja, get me a squadron of Spitfires!”

During the Battle of Britain the Messerschmidts were disadvantaged because of limited flying range. They only had about five minuted of fuel to fight over London, and many experienced Luftwaffe pilots were lost in the Channel. By the end of the War many raw Luftwaffe pilots entered combat with fewer hours air time than a U.S. pilot would be required to have to solo. Hitler anticipated a short war and the Luftwaffe did not establish a pipeline to train more new pilots to sustain it through the War. The Japanese had the same problem.

The U.S. Eighth Air Force specifically had the task of defeating the fighter arm of the Luftwaffe. The Luftwaffe had stopped sending up fighters to defend against bombing raids against cities or other targets except Berlin and oil fields, in order to preserve their limited strength to repel the coming invasion of Europe. The Eighth Air Force attacked Berlin, using B-17’s as live bait to force the Luftwaffe to respond. Almost 60,000 Americans were killed in the air war over Europe, but in the end, the Luftwaffe was defeated.


14 posted on 06/02/2013 4:40:59 AM PDT by Lonesome in Massachussets (Doing the same thing and expecting different results is called software engineering.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Bill Russell

Thank you for the recc.
I’m sure it will sharpen my distaste for FDR...
I will get it, as well as “The Peasant Prince: Thaddeus Kosciuszko and the Age of Revolution”.


15 posted on 06/02/2013 4:41:55 AM PDT by spankalib ("I freed a thousand slaves. I could have freed a thousand more if only they knew they were slaves.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: Kevmo
But with the P51 vs. the Zero, inexperienced pilots were beating experienced Japanese pilots.

The Zero was obsolete by the time the P-51 arrived, it truly never got much better from 1941 onward. There were many Japanese fighters that were superior to the Zero.

16 posted on 06/02/2013 5:10:07 AM PDT by SampleMan (Feral Humans are the refuse of socialism.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Hillarys Gate Cult
Can people stop having airgasms over the Cobra Maneuver?

Absolutely agree.

17 posted on 06/02/2013 5:12:24 AM PDT by Dartman (Mubarak and Gaddafi are going to look like choirboys when this is over)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: sukhoi-30mki
Bf 109E (Battle of Britain)


18 posted on 06/02/2013 5:30:02 AM PDT by PLMerite (Shut the Beyotch Down! Burn, baby, burn!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SampleMan

Also- by the time the P51 arrived ,the real expierienced
Jap pilots were dead- training was minimal- U.S.
subs had crippled the Jap economy.

And as for the battle of Britain- imagine flying
escort to London and having only 10 minutes to fight
before heading back- big mistake made by the Nazi’s.


19 posted on 06/02/2013 5:30:07 AM PDT by mj1234
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: sukhoi-30mki
What about F-14 vs. Zero?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f3XNEWtJF0o

20 posted on 06/02/2013 5:34:09 AM PDT by Yo-Yo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: mj1234

And.. I worked on F4-b,n,(Vtas upgrade, various ALQ100 upgrades) F4S, pulse doppler integrated circuit look down
shootdown with the AIM 7F sparrow.-

Starting with the the F4N- the VTAS helmet had AIM9 off boresight capability of 25% in 1975!


21 posted on 06/02/2013 5:37:29 AM PDT by mj1234
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: ansel12

Although not mentioned in the article, the Soviets had a crack unit of female pilots on WWII, iirc.


22 posted on 06/02/2013 5:44:36 AM PDT by tanknetter
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: sukhoi-30mki

The Italians had a bomber, the Piaggio P-108, which was roughly the equivalent of the B-17, but only a few were built. Perhaps the Germans should have ordered a few hundred of them.


23 posted on 06/02/2013 5:47:17 AM PDT by Fiji Hill
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: PLMerite

What the Me109 lacked was a DROP TANK.
Aan extra 25-50 gallons of gas over England wold have made a difference. Maybe a BIG one.
The Krauts had a technology advantage—but lacked vision.


24 posted on 06/02/2013 5:52:39 AM PDT by Flintlock ("The British are coming--to TAKE OUR GUNS"--Paul Revere)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: Kevmo

By the time the P 51 was flying in the Pacific there were NO experienced Jap pilots left.


25 posted on 06/02/2013 5:52:42 AM PDT by Kozak (The Republic is dead. I do not owe what we have any loyalty, wealth or sympathy.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: PLMerite

What the Me109 lacked was a DROP TANK.
Aan extra 25-50 gallons of gas over England wold have made a difference. Maybe a BIG one.
The Krauts had a technology advantage—but lacked vision.


26 posted on 06/02/2013 5:53:17 AM PDT by Flintlock ("The British are coming--to TAKE OUR GUNS"--Paul Revere)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: Bill Russell

The Hawker Hurricane was used against the bomber formations, the Spitfire went toe to toe with the ME 109’s, not exactly apples to apples comparison.


27 posted on 06/02/2013 5:55:57 AM PDT by Kozak (The Republic is dead. I do not owe what we have any loyalty, wealth or sympathy.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: Yo-Yo

Great, if obscure movie, and the “splash the Zeros” scene in paritcular was very well done.

Whether by intent or not, it accurately shows how a pilot of a “superior” fighter (Tomcat) can get overconfident in his machine and end up in a situation where a pilot of an “inferior” one (Zero) gets into a position to take a killing shot. The key is always to fight air combat on YOUR terms ( the already mentioned Zoom and Boom tactics used by better performing but less maneuverable US fighters against the Zero), and not get suckered by the other guy into fighting on his.

One of the greatest (or at least most complex) dogfights in history was between an F-4 Phantom and MiG-17 during Vietnam. The USAF pilot was either Olds or Richie (I think) and that phenominal Vietnames pilot. Both both exploited their aircrafts’ potential to the maximum and nether was willing to give an inch to the other’s forte (with the exception of the American having to fight under restrictive visual rules of engagement).


28 posted on 06/02/2013 5:56:20 AM PDT by tanknetter
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: SampleMan
The Jap Navy did a lot of stupid things, one was not pulling front line pilots to train new pilots in 1941 and 42. They had two years to recover from midway and they blew it. The replacement for the A-6M zero was superior to any thing the US Navy had, including the corsair. It was code named Reppu. The Reppu program was put on the back burner when it should have been priority no 1.

Link A-7M


29 posted on 06/02/2013 6:00:12 AM PDT by central_va (I won't be reconstructed and I do not give a damn.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: Fiji Hill
Piaggio P-108


30 posted on 06/02/2013 6:04:40 AM PDT by central_va (I won't be reconstructed and I do not give a damn.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: sukhoi-30mki

Everything I read about the Battle of Britain showed me that the BF109 was superior to the Spitfires, but the Luftwaffe pilots were too focused on their fuel levels to fight effectively just so they had a chance to make it all the way back to base on the continent.


31 posted on 06/02/2013 6:05:41 AM PDT by EricT. (Another Muslim terrorist. Who saw that coming?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Flintlock
What the Me109 lacked was a DROP TANK. An extra 25-50 gallons of gas over England wold have made a difference. Maybe a BIG one. The Krauts had a technology advantage—but lacked vision.

I find the parallels between the German Airpower Contract doll-outs and Obama's Green Car initiatives stunning...

They both dolled out money to tons of companies, many designs ended up as prototypes, or never made it off the drawing board, and took their eye off the ball on what could have been winning strategies.

That was Goering's job wasn't it, and wasn't he a heroin addict to boot?

32 posted on 06/02/2013 6:06:44 AM PDT by taildragger (( Tighten the 5 point harness and brace for Impact Freepers, ya know it's coming..... ))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: central_va

Joe Foss was furious when he was pulled from combat and sent back to the States as an instructor. He angrily asked what he needed to do to get another combat billet.

His CO told him “Send me another hundred Joe Fosses”.


33 posted on 06/02/2013 6:06:58 AM PDT by tanknetter
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: sukhoi-30mki

I remember speaking to an old pilot who described an air engagement to me.

He was very animated and described the engagement using grand sweeping movements with his hands as aircraft to describe the engagement, with matching narration:

“I came out of the cloud bank and the Fokker was right there, as soon as he saw me, the Fokker dived right back into the clouds.....and I lost him. Then out of nowhere, the Fokker came at me, guns blazing from the direction of the sun.”

I asked him how did he finally defeat the Fokker. He replied: “Fokker? No, that Fokker was a Messerschmitt”


34 posted on 06/02/2013 6:08:32 AM PDT by RFEngineer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: tanknetter

What was the movie?

I want to go get it........ today!

It will be raining all day


35 posted on 06/02/2013 6:08:35 AM PDT by bert ((K.E. N.P. N.C. +12 .....Obama Denies Role in Government)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: ansel12

Ask the Russians. They had 3 fighter regiments with all women pilots. The 556th fighter regiment flew 4400 sorties against the Germans. Two of their pilots are the only women aces. Also had bomber regiments with women pilots. The 46th Taman Guards Bomber Regt. flew 24,000 missions.


36 posted on 06/02/2013 6:09:35 AM PDT by X Fretensis
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Kevmo

By the time P51s were meeting Zeros, most of the experienced Japanese pilots were dead, and the Zero was obsolescent. The surviving experienced pilots were likely suffering from serious combat fatigue.


37 posted on 06/02/2013 6:15:21 AM PDT by Little Ray (How did I end up in this hand-basket, and why is it gettingthe so hot?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: bert

The Final Countdown, a guilty pleasure. There is a cool subtle scene where a fat senator form 1941, before the alpha strike on the jap task force, asks the CO of the carrier if 24 planes(A7 and f14s) is enough planes to do the job, it didn’t sound like a lot of planes. the CO responded in a laconic style “It’s enough”.


38 posted on 06/02/2013 6:16:58 AM PDT by central_va (I won't be reconstructed and I do not give a damn.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: Vanders9

“The most important attribute of a fighter is speed.”

See also - F4 Phantom vs. the lighter Migs flown during Vietnam.

The Migs were lighter and more maneuverable, due to the fact that the F4 was designed to be a weapons platform for “stand-off” engagement using missles, and so was larger and heavier in order to withstand large payloads. At first, they didn’t even have machine guns. They were later added in a pod that hung beneath the plane.

Still, the F4’s maintained a 2.5 to 1 kill ratio.

From interviews and documentaries I’ve watched, the speed of the F4 was undoubtedly the deciding factor.


39 posted on 06/02/2013 6:18:32 AM PDT by FLAMING DEATH (I'm not racist - I hate Biden too!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: sukhoi-30mki
...training the pilot has received and his/her skills

Lost interesting in reading right there.

40 posted on 06/02/2013 6:28:57 AM PDT by Last Dakotan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: sukhoi-30mki

Reading this article, a couple of things came to mind:

-There was a pre-war (late 1930’s) fighter called the Brewster Buffalo. From what I’ve read, it became obsolete rather quickly in U.S. forces, and wasn’t much loved by the Brits and Dutch, who got surplus ones. The Finns, however, chewed up entire squadrons of Soviet fighters with the little bugger.

-Regarding the Flanker...there was a Cold War-era unit in the USAF called “Constant Peg” where U.S. pilots would fly captured/acquired Soviet fighters in training missions. They never had a Flanker, of course. They did get to fly MiG-15’s, 21’s and 27’s. It was really interesting to read about the quirks each design had. Apparently, the ‘23 was the toughest to fly and most pilots hated to take the thing up in the air at all.


41 posted on 06/02/2013 6:30:25 AM PDT by DemforBush (Bring me the head of Alfredo Garcia!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: zot

good articel and photo spitfire, bf-109 and others


42 posted on 06/02/2013 6:36:02 AM PDT by GreyFriar (Spearhead - 3rd Armored Division 75-78 & 83-87)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: central_va

thanks....


43 posted on 06/02/2013 6:59:11 AM PDT by bert ((K.E. N.P. N.C. +12 .....Obama Denies Role in Government)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: Kevmo
FW109(sic)

Fw 190

Bf 109

44 posted on 06/02/2013 7:11:09 AM PDT by A.A. Cunningham (Barry Soetoro can't pass E-verify)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Hillarys Gate Cult
but in combat an aircraft would have to to lose airspeed to do it making themselves a sitting duck.

Don't know much about VIFFing, do you?

45 posted on 06/02/2013 7:12:36 AM PDT by A.A. Cunningham (Barry Soetoro can't pass E-verify)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: bert

The Final Countdown

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FbEQ1xFh2J8


46 posted on 06/02/2013 7:18:08 AM PDT by DFG ("Dumb, Dependent, and Democrat is no way to go through life" - Louie Gohmert (R-TX))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: Kozak

I was going to say the same thing.


47 posted on 06/02/2013 7:18:17 AM PDT by SeaHawkFan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: Kevmo

By the time the mustang got to the south pacific the experienced zero pilots were gone.They were cleaned out by the navy pilots and P-40 pilots earlier in the war.The mustang pilots were not as inexperienced as one would think by that time in the war.There are more P-40 aces than there are are mustang aces a fact that is over looked by mustang fans.


48 posted on 06/02/2013 7:32:07 AM PDT by HANG THE EXPENSE (Life's tough.It's tougher when you're stupid.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: HANG THE EXPENSE
The F6F Hellcat annihilated the Zero. The P-40 contributed a little. 5160 air-to-air victories vs. 660.

Linkage

49 posted on 06/02/2013 7:56:19 AM PDT by Flag_This (Real presidents don't bow.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 48 | View Replies]

To: HANG THE EXPENSE
They were cleaned out by the navy pilots and P-40 pilots earlier in the war.

What a benevolent slight to the 120 Marine Corps aces and all the other Marine aviators with kills in the Pacific theater. Yeah it was all squids and army air corps pukes who won the war.

50 posted on 06/02/2013 8:07:15 AM PDT by A.A. Cunningham (Barry Soetoro can't pass E-verify)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 48 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-80 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson