omg the meserchmitch i so easy to shoot with the spit i love it

[JG14_Josf]

So to answer your question - 109 is a perfect energy fighter... in capable hands. It certainly has got the potential and it's fun to fly. If you stall it too often, you're doing something wrong. I never stall my 109 (except when I make a mistake) and I don't see any good 109 pilots stalling either.

Anyone,

The customary, rational, reasonable, and obvious solution to the pissing contest tactic done by the forum member quoted above is to put their money where their mouth is, and commence a method by which the person puts up or shuts up.

The 109 is no better or no worse of an Energy Fighter than any other plane if the answer to the question avoids the question and moves from a discussion about the plane to claims concerning the capabilities of the pilot.

The claim that the 109 is a perfect energy fighter (because the pilot is better) works for the Stuka, the Spitfire, the Wellington, or the paper airplane.

The paper airplane is the perfect energy fighter (fine print: so long as the better pilot is flying the paper airplane).

What is it, precisely, about the performance of the 109, that is unique to the 109, and is not something unique to the opposition, by which the 109 is superior or a "perfect" energy fighter?

If there were an operating Dueling Ladder, for example, where controlled engagements of duels, or jousts, or one on one Simulated Ar Combat Fights, scored and documented, track files recorded, then the concept of dodging the question with an ambiguous answer would be meaningless, because the facts would be documented, and the opinions would be meaning-less, as meaning-less, as opinions concerning which pilot is better reported now, on this forum, since the actual answers would be provided in the results of the documented employments of each plane and each pilot over time as the best pilots flying the best planes using the best tactics PROVE which plane is the best Energy Fighter and which plane is the best Angles Fighter.

Which plane, in the track file, performs which maneuver against which other plane, right there on track files, leaving no room for subjective opinion.

What cannot be said, without resort to complete fabrication, is that the 109 is a perfect angles fighter, so no one dares make such an obvious false statement.

But to say that the 109 is a perfect energy fighter because the pilot is better is no different that saying the Spitfire is a perfect energy fighter because the pilot is better.

So why not say that the 109 is a perfect angles fighter, turner and burner, b because the pilot is better?

Because that would be an obvious fabrication of deception?

What is the point of the deceptions?

The characteristics that make a plane better at energy fighting are spelled out in Fighter Combat by Robert Shaw, and in all the work done by John Boyd that is well recorded on the Naviar site, which is not "theory". Peak acceleration, which is higher Specific Excess Power, is the performance variable that makes one fighter plane better than another plane, and under which conditions the advantage of having more power to move the airplane from where you are to where you prefer to be, again not "theory", is the ability, the power, to win the fight.

Why call the application of science used to discover the accurate measure of relative combat performance a "theory"?

What is the point of such deception?

If a person purchases the game and is then interested in finding out which plane (not pilot) is better than the other plane, then it may be a good idea to let that person know how the professionals have figured out exactly how to measure that performance advantage, without question.

Not theory.

Is it a racket?

"If you want to know which plane is better, you have to ask me, because all those other false authorities on the subject are only offering theory?"

Is that the game being played here?

"I know, but they... those people who are or were professional fighter pilots in the business of Air Combat, in reality, are mere "theorists", so ask me, and don't listen to their crack pot theories?"

Is that the game being played?

"The 109 is, because I say so, a perfect energy fighter."

That is fact?

Then:

"It is the pilot, not the plane, that makes for the perfect energy fighter."

Does that work for the perfect angles fighter too? The 109 is the perfect Angles Fighter, because the pilot is better?

Is that a form of musical chairs?

It is a fabrication of deception to call the Energy Maneuverability application of Science a "theory", when the product of that employment of that work is well documented and proven to accomplish the intended goal of measuring which Fighter Plane has exactly which performance capabilities, such as level flight acceleration, Specific Excess Power, dive acceleration, zoom climb acceleration, corner speed (maximum turn rate and minimum turn radius), and sustained turn performance.

To return to a logical, reasonable, precise, and accurate perspective on the matter at hand, the topic, there can be in "theory", people talking shop on a forum is a "theory", or instead of that "talk", there can be "walking", in actual reality, a duel to employ as an example of which plane (not pilot), is, in fact, the perfect energy fighter, and which plane is, in fact, modeled as a target.

Both planes in question, are tested, in a mock combat, simulated combat, controlled tests, and pilots are switched from one plane to the other as a "CONTROL" on the test to remove the factor of which pilot is the better pilot.

If the fight turns into only a contest of turning and burning, known in the professional Fighter Combat terminology and Angles Fighting, then the claim being made is a baseless claim:

This claim:

the 109 is perfect energy fighter

If there is no energy fighting, in any test, anywhere, anytime, then the claim is baseless.

If on the other hand, in actual fact, or in theory (so as to explain what the person doing the claim actually means), the 109 is employed as a perfect energy fighter against an imperfect energy fighter, then that can be described, as it works in theory, on a forum, and that can be proven, bypassing theory, it can be demonstrated in actual fact, with a controlled use of the game in fact.

Again the book Fighter Combat, which is not a theoretical book, offers many examples of exactly what is, or is not, Energy Fighting.

So the claimant who makes the claim about the perfection of the 109 Energy Fighting capability can then, in theory, demonstrate how perfection in energy fighting is done, having made the claim, with that 109.

Or not.

Which brings up a possible problem encountered by anyone who purchases the game, who is then seeking advice as to which plane is better, and in which ways which plane is better, and then having nothing but baseless claims, that never materialize, such as the 109 being a perfect energy fighter, and finally a confession is made that "it is the pilot" not the machine, which is logically a retraction of the original claim.

The 109 is not a perfect energy fighter after all, since the claimant of that baseless claim retracts that claim, and replaces that claim with a new claim, where the new claim is that the pilot is the perfect energy fighter, not the plane.

Back to square one?

Which plane is better, not which pilot is better, but which plane is better, and the obvious answer remains obvious, as the Spitfire can turn and burn inside any 109 anytime.

Both planes have comparable rates of acceleration, apparently, since those who claim that one plane is perfect at energy fighting retract such baseless claims when challenged to put up or shut up.

Fabrications of dubious claims of "theory" contained in the information linked, Fighter Combat by Robert Shaw, for example, or Navair web pages, for another example, may misdirect a new player away from those sources of accurate information that can help answer the question asked, the topic question, if that does happen, in fact, someone here on this forum being misdirected by fabrications of nonsense.

The fact remains a fact that there are easy ways to find out which plane is better and find out exactly how much one plane is better, and with an easy to manage CONTROL, the factor of the pilot is rendered to be a CONSTANT if two pilots fly both planes in mock combat to see, for themselves, exactly, without doubt, which planes do which maneuvers better according to the GAME CODE that has been "adjusted" to suit whichever opinion has sway over those adjustments.

The challenge then, for any new player purchasing the game, and asking the topic question, is to find someone willing to do controlled tests, to eliminate the Pilot variable, to render the Pilot variable to be a CONSTANT, not a variable, and in those controlled tests the person asking the question can get the accurate answer that way.

Which way?

Side by side level flight acceleration tests can show which plane can get away from which plane or both planes are equal. Either one is superior in level flight acceleration or not.

Level flight sustained turn tests, one behind the other, can show which plane can turn inside the other. That is already well known, without controversy.

The Spitfire is superior, and the 109 is modeled with a very bad tendency to spin, which is opposite of the actual well documented facts.

The two pilots can switch planes to remove the Pilot variable, to make that variable no longer a variable.

More than 2 pilots can improve the accuracy of the scientific method of making variables into constants.

Corner speed tests offer significant information concerning which plane is better at burning energy, converting that energy into advantageous position, and which plane gains more position with less loss of energy, and those corner speed tests can also be done side by side, and the pilot variable can also be rendered constant by switching pilots and planes.

An additional benefit for the new player interested enough in the game to a point where the new player is actually wanting to know the precise advantages one plane is modeled in the game better than another plane, having that interest reaching that point of intensity, to that point of finding another player willing do perform these types of comparative performance tests, is the possibility of finding a wingman, someone other than the lone player, to combine forces, and use the game to then begin to explore the many advantages of teamwork.

Team tactics are also well covered in great detail in Fighter Combat by Robert Shaw.

So...no need to rely upon "experts" who never actually answer any questions, when the facts of the matter are actually modeled in the game, and with one other player to help the new player to show exactly which plane does which maneuver better, the game can thereby become a much richer experience instead of a struggle against seemingly impossible odds.