Pilot skill vs aircraft spec

[macguba]

Ladies & Gentlemen, what an impressive community you have here...... people who can identify an obscure aircraft from a fuzzy photo of the tailwheel. I find it hard to imagine I could ever post an answer.

However, I can post a question. Can we quantify (very, very roughly) differences in pilot skill in terms of aircraft performance? There is much talk in the world of technical differences, but much less talk of human differences. Which are just as important.

For example, imagine two fighter pilots meeting in single combat. All external factors - altitude, weather, morale, fuel, ammo, etc - are neutral. Pilot 1 (let's call him Kryten) is a typical journeyman: he has perhaps half a dozen real missions under his belt. If - if - he finishes his tour he will have a couple of kills to his name, plus a couple shared. In other words he is good enough to shoot somebody down, but he'll never be an ace.

Pilot 2 (Ace) is the other end of the spectrum. He is already an ace with eight or ten kills under his belt, and swathes of experience. In other words we are not comparing a rookie with a superstar, but 'indifferent to ordinary' with 'good to very good'.

If the aircraft are of equivalent capabilities, or Ace's aircraft is superior, then the result is obvious. But what if Ace is in a Spitfire I and Kryten something rather better? A Spitfire Vb? Or a Spitfire IX, or a XIV with the bubble canopy? (This is not about the aircraft: we could as well say 109E and Ta152, or Hurricane and Corsair, or whatever you like.)

What difference in aircraft would match that difference in skill?

 

[Greyman]

However, I can post a question. Can we quantify (very, very roughly) differences in pilot skill in terms of aircraft performance?

No. It's a bit like trying to figure out what difference in equipment could be quantified to let one professional sports team beat another.

 

[macguba]

But we can easily quantify what differences in sports equipment would allow one team to beat another. For example, the elasticity of a cricket bat can be measured, and the effect on the speed of the rebounding ball calculated. If the ball comes off the bat faster for one team (with superior bats) than another, we can figure out what effect that will have on the required reaction time of slip fielders to take a catch, or the liklihood of a ball making it to the boundary with a fielder in hot pursuit. In turn, this can be converted into runs and wickets to give us our answer.

Similarly, we can easily quantify the minutiae of pilot performance. Aces have quick reactions: if the ace is quicker by 1/20th of a second, that equates to about one fighter length at 400mph.

The bit I don't know is what all these minutiae are, and how significant they are, and how they might be combined into an overall advantage, and how that advantage could be converted into aircraft types or marks.

There is a thread about whether early war fighters could have a chance against late war fighters. By saying 'no', you are instantly quantifying the difference in skill: no difference in skill can make up for 100mph in speed.

 

[FLYBOYJ]

There is a thread about whether early war fighters could have a chance against late war fighters. By saying 'no', you are instantly quantifying the difference in skill: no difference in skill can make up for 100mph in speed.

Unless the guy flying the superior aircraft is totally green or underestimates his opponent.

 

[PAT303]

There is a thread about whether early war fighters could have a chance against late war fighters. By saying 'no', you are instantly quantifying the difference in skill: no difference in skill can make up for 100mph in speed.

A pilot flying a A6M2 in 1945 has no chance against a late war pilot with hundreds of combat hours flying a MkXIV P51D P47D, firstly the Zero won't catch the other aircraft because it doesn't have the performance to do so, second the latter pilots are never going to get into a sub 200 mph turning fight at 10,000ft with it if by some miracle it does get the jump on them, thirdly, the Spitfire has armor that is proof against the Zero's RMG's and 20mm cannon, the P47 will absorb a lot of fire because of it's size and the P51 a combination of the two. Fourthly late war aircraft have such a performance advantage over planes like the Zero that they can and quickly will reverse the fight in their favour if jumped and the poor Zero and pilot will find themselves being rapidly shredded beyond help by .50 cal API and 20mm SAPI rounds.

 

[pbehn]

I raced motorcycles at club level in the UK and some people are just better than average like me (I won a good few races in a restricted class) Then there are the others who are exceptional, they can be beaten of course but I couldn't beat them. I saw Alan Carter win one of his first races at Croft, a year later he won a Grand Prix in South Africa. I was out in practice with Niall Mackenzie going into the first fast curve for the first time he was going about 20mph faster. One guy I raced against many times I only beat by luck. I could brake later, break earlier put the power on sooner or later no matter what he had the answer and always came out of the corner in the lead. Damon Hill passed me on a Yamaha RD350LC road bike with road tyres at Donnington Park, Craner curves, his bike was going sideways but still perfectly on line even after hitting my shoulder. Some people are just different. Adrenaline increases your awareness of everything, but it works more with some than others, the top guys see more and see further and react quicker and react better. Hard to explain until you've seen it up close.

 

[nuuumannn]

But we can easily quantify what differences in sports equipment would allow one team to beat another. For example, the elasticity of a cricket bat can be measured, and the effect on the speed of the rebounding ball calculated. If the ball comes off the bat faster for one team (with superior bats) than another, we can figure out what effect that will have on the required reaction time of slip fielders to take a catch, or the liklihood of a ball making it to the boundary with a fielder in hot pursuit. In turn, this can be converted into runs and wickets to give us our answer.

Similarly, we can easily quantify the minutiae of pilot performance. Aces have quick reactions: if the ace is quicker by 1/20th of a second, that equates to about one fighter length at 400mph.

The bit I don't know is what all these minutiae are, and how significant they are, and how they might be combined into an overall advantage, and how that advantage could be converted into aircraft types or marks.

There is a thread about whether early war fighters could have a chance against late war fighters. By saying 'no', you are instantly quantifying the difference in skill: no difference in skill can make up for 100mph in speed.

I think, in a roundabout way, you might have just answered your own question!

 

[nuuumannn]

I think our resident fighter pilot Biff should chime in.

I read once about the Royal Navy Sea Harrier squadrons and how they regularly defeated the Britain based USAF F-15 fighter squadrons in mock combat exercises. The F-15 boys had been trouncing everyone who came to play (at the time RAF Lakenheath and Mildenhall hosted F-5 equipped Aggressor squadrons, so they knew what they were doing), and when the Sea Harrier guys were invited, they beat the F-15s at their own game. The reason why was simple. Most of the Harrier pilots had previously flown F-4s with the RN and knew the limitations of the Sparrow missile and so were able to use this and take advantage of the fact that the Sea Harrier could out-manoeuvre almost anything in a dog fight, thus they put the F-15 pilots at a disadvantage. A combination of researching their enemy's strengths and weaknesses, individual pilot skill and training and knowing the strengths and weaknesses of their own equipment led them to victory.

The escapades can be read about in Sea Harrier over the Falklands by Sharkey Ward (Pen and Sword, 1992)

 

[GregP]

The Ace made "Ace" by never losing sight of the enemy, having his tactics firmly in mind, and should the situation change, the ace knows how to adjust his tactics to meet the new situation. If the ace can't do these things, he won't make ace and have his 8 - 10 victories ... unless he was flying on, say, the Russian Front early in the war when the Soviet pilots were numerous, flying obsolete aircraft, were very green, and not encouraged to think for themselves.

Let's assume the ace got there legitimately.

The rookie might have these traits, but it is unlikely. But, suppose the rookie was a champion aerobatic pilot before going into the Military. Then he isn't a "typical" combat rookie and likely has better aircraft control skills than even the ace. That might make a significant difference in the rookie's chances of survival. Otherwise, the pilot with more experience, better airplane control, and a definite tactical plan will usually win, and seemingly easily because he anticipates the moves of the other guy and puts himself in a position from which to get hits and avoids rookie mistakes that might get him shot down.

But even a champion aerobatic pilot may have never tried to "get on someone's tail" and stay there with a goal of shooting him down. So, he may not have a good tactical plan even if he is an experienced pilot ... but not experience in aerial combat. A veteran combat fighter pilot may not be the absolute best flyer, but he knows what it takes for military combat flying, and that makes all the difference.

Logically, it doesn't make any difference what the nationality or the airplane is, a combat rookie (using only guns, anyway) from anywhere makes similar mistakes by not knowing what to do instantly in a combat situation because he hasn't practiced ACM enough to be instinctively good at it yet, and any delays in making the correct moves will work against him.

 

[pbehn]

The Ace made "Ace" by never losing sight of the enemy, having his tactics firmly in mind, and should the situation change, the ace knows how to adjust his tactics to meet the new situation. If the ace can't do these things, he won't make ace and have is 8 - 10 victories ... unless he was flying on, say, the Russian Front early in the war when the Soviet pilots were numerous, flying obsolete aircraft, were very green, and not encouraged to think for themselves.

Let's assume the ace got there legitimately.

The rookie might have these traits, but it is unlikely. But, suppose the rookie was a champion aerobatic pilot before going into the Military. Then he isn't a "typical" combat rookie and likely has better aircraft control skills than even the ace. That might make a significant difference in the rookie's chances of survival. Otherwise, the pilot with more experience, better airplane control, and a definite tactical plan will usually win, and seemingly easily because he anticipates the moves of the other guy and puts himself in a position from which to get hits and avoids rookie mistakes that might get him shot down.

But even a champion aerobatic pilot may have never tried to "get on someone's tail" and stay there with a goal of shooting him down. So, he may not have a good tactical plan even if he is an experienced pilot ... but not experience in aerial combat. A veteran combat fighter pilot may not be the absolute best flyer, but he knows what it takes for military combat flying, and that makes all the difference.

Logically, it doesn't make any difference what the nationality or the airplane is, a combat rookie (using only guns, anyway) from anywhere makes similar mistakes by not knowing what to do instantly in a combat situation because he hasn't practiced ACM enough to be instinctively good at it yet, and any delays in making the correct moves will work against him.

I think it is in "The most dangerous Enemy" that I saw this discussed. Squadron leaders who had won prizes for air displays didn't last long in the BoB. Those beautiful elegant curves and arcs that are so pleasing to the eye are entirely predictable to someone wanting to line up a shot on you. Bob Doe who was covered extensively in the book was the opposite, he used to throw his plane across the sky in wild erratic manoeuvres, he figured that if he didn't know what he was doing next, no one else did.

 

[BiffF15]

Gents,

GregP did a pretty good job answering the question. My 2 cents is "it depends". Newest plane with a new pilot, versus older plane with an experienced pilot. It depends on many variables, but the old guy understands the situation and will more easily recognize errors or openings in the new guys maneuvering. It also depends on how much of a performance advantage the newer plane has. All variables in the equation.

When going through the F-15 school, on my very first dissimilar ride (2 v 2 with GE powered F-16s from Moody) I had a similar event. The F16 had quite a performance advantage due to it's flight controls and massively powered engine. I shot him in the face with a radar missile, followed by a heater arriving at the merge. At this point I was split from my flight lead and basically on a 1 v 1 set up head on at the start. I was supposed to call him dead, I had two good shots on him. However, I likened him to a Zero and wanted to see his vaulted turn performance. I went one circle with him (his strong suite) and literally gunned him with in seconds.

He was slow at the merge, and high altitude. Both detriments. I never noticed (at the time) as I had my fangs out and only wanted to mix it up.

My IP ended up with his hands full versus the other guy. The debrief involved a lot of cussing with me listening attentively, trying not to smile (all I could think was I killed my guy).

Learning point is even the stupid will get lucky on occasion.

Cheers,
Biff

 

[GregP]

Hey Biff, what was he cussing at you about? Getting Separated and leaving the IP to fend for himself? As in Top Gun, "You never, ever leave your wingman?"

 

[BiffF15]

Hey Biff, what was he cussing at you about? Getting Separated and leaving the IP to fend for himself? As in Top Gun, "You never, ever leave your wingman?"

Greg,

He was cussing for several reasons. First, I killed my guy twice coming into the merge (two different single shots each good for a kill) and didn't call him dead. Second, calling him (the F16) dead meant I should have turned and flowed to give support to my flight lead / IP. Third, after not calling my kill shots I proceeded to anchor in a knife fight.

He basically had proof of three instances in which I had not followed what was briefed (on video) and was pretty pissed.

What I was chuckling about inside was he was the IP and ended up with his hands full. He knew that I just wanted to turn with the Viper guy, and I killed a better performing plane after a neutral set up, so it sort of took the edge off. He was a good Eagle Driver, and expected you to perform. He solo'd me out in the Eagle as well. May he RIP. Buster was the flight lead that day.

26 March 2001: F-15C-42-MC, 86-0169, c/n 1018/C397, of the 493d FS, 48th FW, USAF, two US Air Force F-15Cs crashed near the summit of Ben Macdui in the Cairngorms during a low flying training exercise over the Scottish Highlands with low visibility.[40] Lieutenant Colonel Kenneth John Hyvonen died in the accident as did Captain Kirk Jones in the second F-15.[5] USAF investigators cited a breakdown in terrain avoidance responsibilities between the pilots and ground controllers.[41] In 2003, an RAF air traffic controller was found not guilty during a court martial.[42] In 2006, the RAF Board of Inquiry stated that the pilots were partly responsible for accepting a clearly unsafe air traffic control instruction.[43]

Cheers,
Biff

 

[Peter Gunn]

I must admit,

I shot him in the face with a radar missile

had me bust out laughing when I read it the first time.

 

[FLYBOYJ]

The L39 I crewed at Reno in 2015 was flown by a former F-14 pilot named Dave Coller. His call sign was "Killer." How perfect is that for a fighter pilot?!?!? When I asked him how he got his call sign he told me something to the effect that during training he locked on and killed several aircraft that entered the engagement too early, one of the "combatants" was the CAG. When they debriefed Dave got his butt chewed but some defended Dave saying it was the CAG and his flight that screwed up. During the butt chewing the CAG told Dave he was a "Husband Killer" and "Murderer." The rest is history!

 

[Peter Gunn]

Gents,

*SNIP*

When going through the F-15 school, on my very first dissimilar ride (2 v 2 with GE powered F-16s from Moody) I had a similar event. The F16 had quite a performance advantage due to it's flight controls and massively powered engine. I shot him in the face with a radar missile, followed by a heater arriving at the merge. At this point I was split from my flight lead and basically on a 1 v 1 set up head on at the start. I was supposed to call him dead, I had two good shots on him. However, I likened him to a Zero and wanted to see his vaulted turn performance. I went one circle with him (his strong suite) and literally gunned him with in seconds.

He was slow at the merge, and high altitude. Both detriments. I never noticed (at the time) as I had my fangs out and only wanted to mix it up.

*SNIP*

Cheers,
Biff

So let me pose a question for you, and maybe I'm just not bright enough to get it the first time so be patient if you would. So even though the F16 is supposed to be more maneuverable you got him after the first circle, how'd that happen? I"ll posit you were pretty good with an F15 so do tell how you managed that please.

*EDIT*
OK, now I see the "He was slow at the merge, and high altitude. Both detriments." part. Reading comprehension, sometimes it pays off, albeit somewhat late in this case.

 

[wingnuts]

Unless the guy flying the superior aircraft is totally green or underestimates his opponent.

A good example, I think Villamore was a "natural" in an obsolete aircraft, the Japanese A6M pilot, or pilots, although well trained probably just underestimated the opposition.