Quote:
Originally Posted by Osprey
I think you missed my point Manu, especially that part where I used the term "Ceteris Paribus". You speak as if you always have advantage but in war you cannot guarantee that, just ask Al Deere.
I don't need flying advice, that's not what i'm talking about.
|
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
05-01-2012, 11:14 PM
Threaded Mode