I appreciate the help with this. One of the things I am wondering about it that it seems to me that kill-loss ratios are often skewed. For example, many of the aircraft that have stats posted for did not see as much action or saw action against signigicantly inferior oppontents that tends to inflate their kill-loss ratios. Furthermore, when discussing such ratios, often ALL losses (weather, pilot error, collision, AA fire, and air-to-ait losses) are factored in. Obviously, the Tiffy and T-bolt will take considerably higher losses that an predominately air-to-air fighter like the Mustang. What are the thoughts about using enemy kills/ aircraft produced as a measure of judging effectiveness? Note that I do not believe ANY statistic can truly measure the effectiveness of an airplane but I feel this might be a more objective way of looking at things.