Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
In an individual combat, yes. However if in my airforce, the average pilot ability and aircraft capability is better than your average pilot and aircraft ability, I will win the war and you will lose.
You are of course correct, but the numbers can be very different, it depends on how big the difference is in the difference of the Average pilot/aircraft combination.Only if your forces are relatively well matched quantitatively. If you're a tidgy-tiny air force going up against a much larger air force with comparably-performing aircraft, the likelihood is that you will lose because attrition will have a much greater impact on your force. Quantity has a quality all its own, remember.
In both of the above the Arab nations and Russia had a significant numerical advantage yet Israel dominated the skies and Ukraine are more than holding their own despite being outnumbered and often having inferior aircraft.
Exactly."a well trained cohesive unit that developed tactics which exploited the opposition's weaknesses."
In my opinion this is where both the Spit and Hurri win, both are known for their docile handling, as Molders said and I quote '' they are childishly easy to fly, our 109's in comparison are fiendish'', the average pilot who can take off and land without worrying if he's going to crash every time will build confidence quickly and start searching and pushing the limits of his plane, the difference between the British pair and the 109 is like this, same for the Corsair V Hellcat, the Hellcat was loved by it's pilots because it was also vice free, important for a naval aircraft. The whole ace whoever shot down X amount of planes means nothing, I've never read anywhere of pilots wanting their older model aircraft when new ones are available.In an individual combat, yes. However if in my airforce, the average pilot ability and aircraft capability is better than your average pilot and aircraft ability, I will win the war and you will lose.
You are of course correct, but the numbers can be very different, it depends on how big the difference is in the difference of the Average pilot/aircraft combination.
Two examples I think most people are aware of.
The German invasion of France and the Invasion of Russia. In the first the numbers involved were fairly equal, in the second Russia had a massive numerical advantage.
Lets put Yeager in a Hurricane and send him across the channel in 1942.
One of those glib comments that doesn't hold up to close scrutiny. Obviously the machine is extraordinarily important.
Hans-Joachim Marseille did not want to convert from the -109F to the G because of engine reliability issues. The rest is history.I've never read anywhere of pilots wanting their older model aircraft when new ones are available.
I've never read anywhere of pilots wanting their older model aircraft when new ones are available.
The G wasn't a better plane than the Fiesla because it was unrelaible so my point still stands.Hans-Joachim Marseille did not want to convert from the -109F to the G because of engine reliability issues. The rest is history.
Less weight so better overall performance would be the reason here, the F3 was the better aircraft.USN and USMC pilots preferring F4F-3s to -4s. Four fifties vs six, but more shot-time.
Less weight so better overall performance would be the reason here, the F3 was the better aircraft.
The G was a NEWER plane! You never said anything about "better."The G wasn't a better plane than the Fiesla because it was unrelaible so my point still stands.
Well, you'd written "'I've never read anywhere of pilots wanting their older model aircraft when new ones are available" so I thought I'd present one example you might not have heard of.
As for the weight issue, I can't be sure if the extra ammo carried earlier weighed more than the two extra guns with reduced ammo. I only know that the pilots preferred more trigger-time.
The point I was making was latest model aircraft incorporate leasons learned in combat, developements in technology and are generally better performing than the previous model so pilots would naturally want the newest one, the six gunned Wildcat was lower performing than the four gunned model, the six guns was a British request for more firepower, in this case the newer model was not an improvement so yes the pilots would not look kindly at it.Well, you'd written "'I've never read anywhere of pilots wanting their older model aircraft when new ones are available" so I thought I'd present one example you might not have heard of.
The folding wings added weight too, it was a slug compared to the F3.According to America's Hundred Thousand:
F4F-3 weights: 286 lbs (4 x .50-cal MG) + 516 lbs (1,720 rounds of .50-cal ammunition) = 802 lbs
F4F-4 weights: 433 lbs (6 x .50-cal MG) + 432 lbs (1,440 rounds of .50-cal ammunition) = 865 lbs
That's 63 lbs more for the F4F-4 model.
The G wasn't a better plane than the Fiesla because it was unrelaible so my point still stands.
Take what I said in context to the discussion, Marseille didn't like the G compared to the F because the early G models were suffering from known engine problems at the time.Funny, the Bf 109G was the the most-produced version by far at 24,931. Next was the Bf 109F at 5,460.
If it was unreliable, you'd think that it would have a reputation for that. It doesn't other than very early models. Could you elaborate a bit on why you say it is unreliable?
Just curious.