Quote:
Originally Posted by 6S.Manu
I don't think I've missed the point: I understand that Spitfires had some advantages, mainly energy retention... if we take for example the Goring's order to close escort the bombers, in that case the Spitfire would be the better plane since it can defend itself better staying in the same airspace (defending the bombers). Instead the 109s can only dive away.
But here we are talking of close escort (that 109s clearly can't do... neither any US fighter) that's the only environment in where I can think a more manouvrable plane has a real advantage.
And Spitfire keeps that advantage if you switch the 109 with the 262, a flying brick with no aerobatic skill at all.
The only advise I was giving to you is to rethink about the importance of the aerobatic ability in a fighter plane: by quotes and interviews those pilots seem agree with me.
Glider: http://www.virtualpilots.fi/feature/...hs/#stickforce |
Interesting, you got the point but didn't see it all the same. We call that "failing to see the woods for all the trees".