Quote:
Originally Posted by Seeker
Of course it's a completely spurious comparison, but nonetheless odd that a machine designed for 2 D is more robust in this matter than a machine designed for 3D.
|
In the official mind, interceptors go up, shoot a bomber or two, come back down, re-arm, refuel and repeat.
Quote:
|
The RAF's aeroplanes are serious tools paid with using Public Money, not toys for pilots. Furthermore, pilots are reminded to fly directly to and from their targets, since prodigal use of fuel is burdensome to the Public Purse.
|
Or words to that effect.
If you just think of the interception task, and assume that the target is a cooperative bomber flying in a straight line, you really only need 1 g straight & level, plus axial acceleration/pitch changes to get the job done.
Is this silly? Of course. But if the people designing the aeroplanes have never flown them then it's unrealistic to expect them to imaginatively embellish the specifications given to them by the man from the Ministry, especially since they probably wouldn't be thanked for it anyway.