diving extension/pitch-back

[RegRag1977]

I see -not surprising, since we are all humans- that everyone can have another interpretation when it comes to quoting a text, i'm just proposing my cheap one that's all:

Originally Posted by FC99

This is only possible if you have Spitfire pilot who is willing to "cooperate". In other words, if Spitfire pilots knows what he is doing, P-47 can't do anything in a dogfight with Spit, in game and in RL.

And when we are quoting Shaw this is the part that precedes the paragraph quoted by BlackBerry.


Key part being "inexperienced or a careless opponent".

True: "inexperienced or a careless opponent" is a key factor inside the part you quote!

But later when talking specifically about Spitfire IX and Thunderbolt P47C, Shaw doesn't go on with the double inferior argument since P47C is faster (superior top speed) and accelerates faster in a dive, thus neutralizing excess power of the "double superior" aircraft. The Spitfire in the example given is not completely a "double superior" (even with 25% better power loading, 25% lower wing loading advantage the Spitfire does NOT have top speed advantage or dive acceleration advantage) aircraft. Here is the difference with the part you quote, which completely correct in its context.

The part you are quoting precisely refers to: " Excess power OFTEN results in excess speed and a tendency to overrun or overshoot the adversary." Robert L. Shaw, p.183

The key word being "often": that means "not always", just like in the P47c vs Spitfire IX example described later:

"The Thunderbolt only performance advantages were faster top speed, greater acceleration in a dive (because of the P47's heavier weight and higher density), and better roll performance. Johnson, undoubtedly one of the greatest natural fighter pilots of all time, used his roll performance defensively to allow himself the chance to build an energy advantage in a diving extension." idem, p.184

It is not something like cooperating enemy to me...

This is why i still find BlackBerry's questionning valid: i think he has good points actually. But that is just my interpretation.