yeah, and we were comparing dogfight characteristics. It was designed as an interceptor and it did that role well.Dilbert_X wrote:
The fore-runner of the Spitfire was an air racer.Karbin wrote:
The Spit started out as a air racer.The ME109 started out disguised as a mail aircraft.The fore runner of the Bf 109 started out as a fast speed air mail craft.Flat out speed was very important, as was climb rate. If the other aircraft has 100mph and 5,000ft on you you won't see him coming, won't see him passing and won't see him leaving, in the meantime there is nothing you can do.One needs speed and turning, the other flat out speed. Head to head both are damn good craft. I'm of the mind that there so close that it's more the pilot then the air frame.
If he can out climb you you'll never catch him up.
Once into a dogfight it comes down to pilot skill and ability to take g, Spitfire and Messerschmidt could both out-g the pilot.
The Spitfire was always a short-range fighter, and never intended for anything else. Except fast PR unarmed and unarmoured.
Ok Dil... if you want to go this way....Dilbert_X wrote:
The fore-runner of the Spitfire was an air racer.Karbin wrote:
The Spit started out as a air racer.The ME109 started out disguised as a mail aircraft.The fore runner of the Bf 109 started out as a fast speed air mail craft.Flat out speed was very important, as was climb rate. If the other aircraft has 100mph and 5,000ft on you you won't see him coming, won't see him passing and won't see him leaving, in the meantime there is nothing you can do.One needs speed and turning, the other flat out speed. Head to head both are damn good craft. I'm of the mind that there so close that it's more the pilot then the air frame.
If he can out climb you you'll never catch him up.
Once into a dogfight it comes down to pilot skill and ability to take g, Spitfire and Messerschmidt could both out-g the pilot.
The Spitfire was always a short-range fighter, and never intended for anything else. Except fast PR unarmed and unarmoured.
Schneider Trophy winner for 1927, 29 and 31 were the fore-runners of the Spit. The Supermarine S.5, S.6 and S.6B the S.6B represented the cutting edge of aerodynamic technology and provided valuable experience in producing high-speed aircraft, greatly contributing to the development of the later Spitfire fighter.
The 109 started out, not as a Messerschmitt but, as a product of Bayerische Flugzeugwerke (Bavarian Aircraft Works) hence Bf 109.
Willy joined Bf in 1927 and through his contacts with the Nazi party took control of Bfw in 1938.... after the 109 was submited in the '35 fighter contest.
rdx-fx wrote:
Japan was nuked twice, then still had to think about whether or not to surrender
Dilbert_X wrote:
Not really.
Revisionism at it's best, Dil.
Yes. Yes. No. No. No.-Sh1fty- wrote:
Were Spitfires really that good? I always thought Meshershmidt 109s, Hellcats, Corsairs, and Mustangs were better.
I bet more than half the fighter-fighter kills didn't come from dogfights but from the classic 'bounce' where height, speed and rate of climb are key - which is what the Spitfire did.Trotskygrad wrote:
yeah, and we were comparing dogfight characteristics. It was designed as an interceptor and it did that role well.Dilbert_X wrote:
The fore-runner of the Spitfire was an air racer.Karbin wrote:
The Spit started out as a air racer.The ME109 started out disguised as a mail aircraft.The fore runner of the Bf 109 started out as a fast speed air mail craft.Flat out speed was very important, as was climb rate. If the other aircraft has 100mph and 5,000ft on you you won't see him coming, won't see him passing and won't see him leaving, in the meantime there is nothing you can do.One needs speed and turning, the other flat out speed. Head to head both are damn good craft. I'm of the mind that there so close that it's more the pilot then the air frame.
If he can out climb you you'll never catch him up.
Once into a dogfight it comes down to pilot skill and ability to take g, Spitfire and Messerschmidt could both out-g the pilot.
The Spitfire was always a short-range fighter, and never intended for anything else. Except fast PR unarmed and unarmoured.
Fighter-bomber kills would have almost all have been bounce kills, even the realtively maneuvreable twin engined German bombers.
Pilots of course like to talk about dogfights because they like to have people believe the pilot matters more than the airframe and engine.
Fuck Israel
Where did you get "bounce" from? But I agree with the speed/altitude/climb rate being one of the biggest factors. A common tactic for such powerful planes was hit-n-run.
And above your tomb, the stars will belong to us.
"Bounce" has been used in the vocabulary of air combat since.....the beginning of air combat.
Its another word for hit and run, usually from height and out of the sun.
Its another word for hit and run, usually from height and out of the sun.
Fuck Israel
You called?-Sh1fty- wrote:
hit-n-run.
Not sure how true that is considering the scramble nature of the battle of Britain. Couldn't say about other theaters.Dilbert_X wrote:
I bet more than half the fighter-fighter kills didn't come from dogfights but from the classic 'bounce' where height, speed and rate of climb are key - which is what the Spitfire did.Trotskygrad wrote:
yeah, and we were comparing dogfight characteristics. It was designed as an interceptor and it did that role well.Dilbert_X wrote:
The fore-runner of the Spitfire was an air racer.Karbin wrote:
The Spit started out as a air racer.The ME109 started out disguised as a mail aircraft.The fore runner of the Bf 109 started out as a fast speed air mail craft.
Flat out speed was very important, as was climb rate. If the other aircraft has 100mph and 5,000ft on you you won't see him coming, won't see him passing and won't see him leaving, in the meantime there is nothing you can do.
If he can out climb you you'll never catch him up.
Once into a dogfight it comes down to pilot skill and ability to take g, Spitfire and Messerschmidt could both out-g the pilot.
The Spitfire was always a short-range fighter, and never intended for anything else. Except fast PR unarmed and unarmoured.
Fighter-bomber kills would have almost all have been bounce kills, even the realtively maneuvreable twin engined German bombers.
Pilots of course like to talk about dogfights because they like to have people believe the pilot matters more than the airframe and engine.
That was where radar came into play, our fighters, would scramble so they could get into position to "ambush" the German aircraft, which obviously meant rate of climb and speed were important.Cheeky_Ninja06 wrote:
Not sure how true that is considering the scramble nature of the battle of Britain. Couldn't say about other theaters.Dilbert_X wrote:
I bet more than half the fighter-fighter kills didn't come from dogfights but from the classic 'bounce' where height, speed and rate of climb are key - which is what the Spitfire did.Trotskygrad wrote:
yeah, and we were comparing dogfight characteristics. It was designed as an interceptor and it did that role well.
Fighter-bomber kills would have almost all have been bounce kills, even the realtively maneuvreable twin engined German bombers.
Pilots of course like to talk about dogfights because they like to have people believe the pilot matters more than the airframe and engine.
Correct, typically the RAF would scramble, get into an ambush position, knock out what they could then dogfight until the opposition until they ran out of fuel or were shot down.
If you read up on the aircraft specs of the time they invariably covered, speed, rate of climb and armament - nothing related to dogfighting.
If you read up on the aircraft specs of the time they invariably covered, speed, rate of climb and armament - nothing related to dogfighting.
Fuck Israel
They are the easiest things to measure though?Dilbert_X wrote:
Correct, typically the RAF would scramble, get into an ambush position, knock out what they could then dogfight until the opposition until they ran out of fuel or were shot down.
If you read up on the aircraft specs of the time they invariably covered, speed, rate of climb and armament - nothing related to dogfighting.
They were the priorities for the specification - which was about taking down bombers.
If dogfighting had been the priority then acceleration, g capability, roll rate, retained speed in a turn etc would have been listed.
If dogfighting had been the priority then acceleration, g capability, roll rate, retained speed in a turn etc would have been listed.
Fuck Israel
Spitfire is sooo cooooool. That's why it won.
The ME262 owned everything.
Motherfucking Jet, yo.
It was so good in air-to-air combat that the allies decided their best strategy was to attack them on the runway during takeoff and landing.
Motherfucking Jet, yo.
It was so good in air-to-air combat that the allies decided their best strategy was to attack them on the runway during takeoff and landing.
P51 pilots were like wtf its so fast.AussieReaper wrote:
The ME262 owned everything.
Motherfucking Jet, yo.
It was so good in air-to-air combat that the allies decided their best strategy was to attack them on the runway during takeoff and landing.
Me262 pilots were like TROLOLOOLOLOL 30MM CANNON DOUBLE TAP HERE WE GOOOOOO
And B17s were like fuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuu were dying now
Luftwaffe had the best uniforms, it gave them a psychological edge.AussieWarMan wrote:
The ME262 owned everything.
Motherfucking Jet, yo.
It was so good in air-to-air combat that the allies decided their best strategy was to attack them on the runway during takeoff and landing.
Fuck Israel
10 F-22s vs entire RAF during WWII
Who would win?
Who would win?
Baba Booey
Entire RAF F22s would run out of places to rearm before they could down the entire raf.1stSFOD-Delta wrote:
10 F-22s vs entire RAF during WWII
Who would win?
PrivateVendetta wrote:
Spitfire is sooo cooooool. That's why it won.
Small hourglass island
Always raining and foggy
Use an umbrella
Always raining and foggy
Use an umbrella
I read something about the F22 that they can't get any squadrons to practice against them because they are so far ahead.Cheeky_Ninja06 wrote:
Entire RAF F22s would run out of places to rearm before they could down the entire raf.1stSFOD-Delta wrote:
10 F-22s vs entire RAF during WWII
Who would win?
Faster, higher, more manoeuvrable. Multiples better.
They tested them 1v3 F15's with the demo fighter and came off better every time. Serious bit of kit.
was this before or after they suffocated their pilots?
Small hourglass island
Always raining and foggy
Use an umbrella
Always raining and foggy
Use an umbrella
during
PrivateVendetta wrote:
I read something about the F22 that they can't get any squadrons to practice against them because they are so far ahead.
Faster, higher, more manoeuvrable. Multiples better.
I heard the suffocation is a feature.FatherTed wrote:
was this before or after they suffocated their pilots?
When a F-22 pilot is having that much fun, a little autoerotic asphyxiation is said to enhance the pleasure.
Not supposed to go all David Carradine about it, but... mach 2 at 50,000 feet.. things can just happen...
That's why you need a spotter.
Baba Booey
A-Whacks?1stSFOD-Delta wrote:
That's why you need a spotter.
Is the AWACS considered a spotter?