Replies

“It’s the pilot, not the plane.”

Yes and no. There is still only so much a pilot can do to overcome the tech disadvantage. Otherwise one could claim a WWI biplane is the equal of an F-22.

The technology is useless without the pilot, but that doesn’t make the pilot the only consideration.

The expression “It’s the pilot, not the plane.” makes a great movie line. But movie war tactics are a poor way to go to real war.

Yeah, maybe it is silly to compare a Sopwith Camel to an F-22, although maybe there is always room for luck. At the bare minimum, you'd probably need at least a MiG-15/17, Sabre Jet or a CF-100 Canuck to engage with any hope. Myself, I woulds not go any less than at least an F-4 but an F-14 is more like it.

I think we get too cocky with all this high tech, many times, the more complicated the plane (or whatever is in question), the more Achilles heels you may have. Then again, like I said in the beginning, there could be that Albanian, Cuban or North Korean pilot that jumps you in a MiG-17 and it could be it. Electronics can fail, you need to maintain it and if you run out of parts, the F-22 becomes useful only as a static display for children to crawl into at the local park. Air technology for manned aircraft has pretty much plateaued for the most part say form 1960/65 onward much like firearms tech did in the early 20th Century with the exception of plastics. I could be wrong in the eyes of some but that's generally my take.

Otherwise one could claim a WWI biplane is the equal of an F-22.

While there are some obvious disadvantages for the biplane, what is the radar cross sedtion of a Spad? A Nieuport? An eindecker Fokker? How about turn, STOL, or rough field capabilities?

Some day the old stuff might make a comeback.