Quote:
Originally Posted by Robo.
I believe Osprey's point was that the aerobatic ability of my aircraft becomes extremely important when I encounter enemy whose speed, climb and rollrate is superior to mine.
|
In a defensive way, yes, but there also only to a certain point.
Case in point is the war in the Pacific, where two philosophies regarding air war clashed. The japanese, with a focus on individual skill in very aerobatic planes vs. the US, standing for team tactics and planes more greared for speed.
The outcome was pretty clear.
The problem with maneuvering is that it costs energy. That is something no fighter pilot wants to give up just so, especially in a sky swarming with enemy fighters.
Now we all know you often find yourself in a situation where you have no chance but to give up energy to get a mission done, and in those cases good maneuverability has its merits.
But in general something already went terrible wrong when you have to employ tight turns in airwar, and good aerobatics won't offset the advantage of a faster plane to engage and disengage at will. It will maintain the initiative, while the aerobatic plane cannot act, just react.
That, btw, is one major and very obvious reason why both the Spitfire and the 109 in their later marks went for more speed, not more maneuverability.