Which performance aspects of a fighter were most crucial?

Pilots may not have talked about it much but speed is vital. Once combat is joined then aircraft will dive climb roll and turn. The plane with the highest speed has the most choice. Pilots mention speed most when they dont have it like those facing the mosquito B29 or for example a 109 in a hurricane. Many US airforce pilots and crew noted that the Me262 was fast and only the fastest AC were suitable for diver patrols.

Greg,

I think it's a bit of "shades of grey". While I did say speed, I should have said energy. The ability to have it, generate it, gain it or lose it. I looked at this as thread / question as a priority list, and with that in mind put speed at the top. If you had to rank attributes numerically where would you put speed, or what would you put for your top three or four?

The extreme example of this would be the Me-262. It couldn't turn or accelerate with a piston fighter, but with that in mind the 262 driver could otherwise dictate the engagements. A lessor example of this would be two opposing fighters with the same top speed. The guy who enters the fight with more speed, especially when at his choosing, has a distinct advantage. He has the choice of a hit and run (with little of no ramification), or turn with the ability to generate higher G (tighter turn) for longer.

The Me-262 is the WW2 extreme example, while the AVG is a lessor but still good example. Speaking of the AVG how does a P-40 accelerate against it's Japanese contemporaries of the time? I agree there is more than speed to a good or great fighter, but in the WW2 environment if you only had 262's for your AF you would have a distinct advantage in the air to air arena. Again this is only my opine!

Cheers,
Biff

GregP said:

I fully agree, Biff, that they had to fast enough, but top speed was not what made the great fighters great. None of the top fighters had the highest speed in the class. But they mostly had enough speed and a generous serving of all the other traits that made combat a winnable proposition.

In the late 1943 through D-Day timeframe the Spit XIV, P-51B, Tempest, F4U-1A and P-47D-16 were the top Allied Fighters - all with speed advantages over all of the Axis fighters. Only the Spit IX was superior in the vertical (vs 109) in that timeframe and that was marginal. Only the Spit was Clearly superior in Turn rate over the 109. Only the Spit XIV was superior in acceleration and firepower (vs every Axis fighter except the 190. Somehow they (Allied fighters and pilots) secured control of the air. Common denominator? Speed to catch, disengage in level flight and dive.

That is, they were stable in that they didn't snake around in yaw, pitch, or roll. They had good acceleration from cruise to combat speed ... which usually wasn't top speed, but was up in the 320+ mph area.

How about 410-430+mph area? Nobody that wished to fight another day traded speed for horizontal engagement without a lot of confidence in the outcome, or dim brain cells.

For the above named Allied fighters vs the 109G-6, the FW 190A-7, the A6M2 model 21, The Hi 61 the top speed advantage ranged from 30mph (Spit IX versus 109G-6) to 45+ mph) (P-47/51 vs 109G) to

They had good maneuverability, decent protection, decent armament, and were rugged enough to handle the stress of many flights at high power output levels as well as to survivie a few hits from another fighter ... unless it was large cannon hits anyway.

To survive the diving Q load pullouts required by every top line fighter Required the level of structure deemed rugged, the above list is fine for the definition of why the P-40 more or less achieved parity to positive ratios versus A6M,Hi-61 which were slower but far more maneuverable in all dimensions, and not completely hammered vs the 109 and 190, which btw were faster and more maneuverable in the vertical.

Do you see a common thread of airframe performance on the outcomes?

There were no Spitfires that cruised into the Battle area at 420 mph, ambushed Bf 109's and flew home at top speed, too. It didn't happen. You might be able to do that in a jet, but piston engines won't stay together under that type flight plan. They cruised in at 250 mph, accelerated when required for battle, and joined well before hitting top speed ... unless they were high and could dive down on an opponent out of the sun. If they chanced upon this stroke of luck, then yes, they might be attacking at top speed.

Of the Allied fighters named above, the Spit XIV cruise for max fuel efficiency was the lowest in contrast to both the P-51B and P-47D (but superior mpg over the P-47D), both of which cruised at 250 with 2x110 external tanks and 300+ 'clean. In addition, high cruise Speed (that word again) lessened the disadvantage when caught by surprise with respect to altitude advantage and subsequent ability to attack.

But the sun rises from the east and the Germans were east of the incoming bombers. Now I ask you, who was coming from the sun in gthe morning?

Well, for German fighters that were positioned directly in front of the bomber stream, they usually entered combat at or after noon if you look at most of the Encounter Reports for Germany. Additionally the sun is declined to the South. If the German fighters and Allied bombers are in Africa with similar situation, the sun will be more or less overhead. And, surprisingly, under clever LW Controller, can be vectored to a more favorable location if the location of the sun is deemed a critical factor. The real determinant is who spots whom first? - Which is why I left the P-38 out of this discussion.

As for P-51s, they were escorts and had to stay with the bomber stream. You can't DO that at 400+ mph and it isn't even easy at 270 mph if escorting a 185 mph bomber formation. They cruised in at about 230 - 250 mph with their eyes open and accelerated when combat was imminent.

They cruised at 220IAS (with 2x110 gallon external tanks which at 25000 feet is about 260mph TAS) and after tanks are dropped then the same best economy cruise jumps to 300+ TAS Greg

A B-17 at 150 mph IAS (standard)is zipping along near 205mph TAS. The B-24 was 25mph faster with same load. The cruise speed selected was for maximum range. A comparable Max range setting for an F4U-1A with externals was about 210mph at 10,000 feet

The Germans tried to get above and dive through the formations firing at targets of opportunity. In that scenario, an escorting P-51 might well apply full pwoer and dive after the German fighter, but if he stayed in the dive too long he would lose the formation and the bombers would be left without escort. So the P-51 could dive a few thousand feet, spray some shots and them use the excess speed to zoom back up to escort height and catch the now distant formation of bombers.

Basically true for the very rare "one Mustang per bomber formation" escort philosophy, but that was discarded in favor of full squadrons and Groups in which flight and squadron CO's had the latitude to order a flight to pursue while the rest of the Group/Squadron remained in case of more targets. Many encounter reports will illustrate the chase, the catch and optionally return to the formation depending on many factors - not the least including fuel remaining after say 67" of boost in the fight.

When the escorts left to go chasing first-wave fighters, the second and third-wave Germans cheered on the radio and bored in for target practice. That is according to former WWII pilots who give talks every month at the museum, not according to Greg. I wasn't there, but the guys giving the talks were.

The tactic worked for green Commanding Officers or the overly aggressive (and somewhat dim witted) that foolishly squandered their role and assets for the sake of getting one or two German fighters. The Germans also used the 'lure' of a couple of high fighters through a bomber (or fighter) formation to draw the fighters away. If it worked once - it didn't happen again. Our guys learned lessons quickly. Additionally, when ambushes were set in this way, the Luftwaffe often got Far more than they bargained for as the fight developed.

In short, Greg, you were listening to LW pilots reminiscing about 'Happy Times" before the green US pilots quickly caught on and then proceeded to turn "happy" to "sad" - and you got to listen to the survivors.

The AVG weren't flying escort and were free to implement their own tactics that were designed for winning agianst superior fighters while flying a P-40. And those tactics worked in a non-ETO environment. They wouldn't work at all in the ETO. They MIGHT have worked in the PTO because when you are over the ocean and encounter enemy fighters, you usualy encountered about 4 - 8 enemy fighters to your own 4 - 8 enemy fighters and you could keep the more or less same size group engaged while the bombers flew on.


Speed at all altitudes is the number one determinant of "fight or Flee" - if you don't have that advantage you have to fall back on less hopeful maneuver capability against the other guy, who with speed advantage may decide to stay or may not - His choice.

I'd believe whatever you say about modern jet fighter combat, but the guys who were flying the pistons in WWII hardly ever mention speed in their talks, except when they got sacred in a dive and survived to tell about it.

Learn to ask the right questions and maybe you will get interesting info.

Hey, you might be 100% right about top speed.

He is. And that might guide you in evaluating the F-86/Mig-15 versus a modern day fighter or give you insight why the USAF/USN doesn't design its fighter force on the A-10 template

I remain doubtful. I don't think 20 mph made a difference at all in combat unless both planes were at top speed going the same direction and very close to one another. Then it MIGHT matter ... unless the slower guy was just a better pilot. And that puts us back to the pilot factor, not the fighter characteristics factors.

Click to expand...

Better pilot always the major factor. But you keep stumbling on the above argument. A 30 to 40mph speed advantage in the upper 1/3 of your performance envelope (8-10%) has a DIRECT influence on Excess Power Available which is crucial for climb and acceleration energy available.

BTW the probability of a former LW fighter pilot that can state (with proof) that he participated in multiple successful 'bait and switch' maneuvers to draw an entire squadron after a flight of divers would have to be questioned very thoroughly. Bomber commanders were observant when such events transpired and 8th FC heard about it - and as the saying goes "s--t flows downhill". Even Robin Olds was grilled when one BG got hammered that was responsibility of the 479th - until other observers noted that the group was late, way out of formation and out of range of the 479th to intervene. Blakeslee was 'addressed' once about this for a March 1944 experience in which one of his covering squadrons was drawn away after a pair of FW 190s - and the tactic worked.. but very rare.

Garyt said:

Considering the AVG was NOT fighting Zeros, give them advantages in speed, durability, and firepower.

Click to expand...

I don't think it would have mattered much. At 250 mph~ the Zero's maneuverability magic dissipated. The Ki43 was actually more maneuverable than the Zero if under gunned.

The Ki43 was actually more maneuverable than the Zero if under gunned.

Click to expand...

That's what I mean - the Ki43 could actually "out zero" a zero, but was even more lacking in areas like armament. At best 2 x 50 caliber, more likely 2 x 7.7 mm in the early war period. Takes a lot of time on target to down a plane with that limited of firepower.

A Zero would have been different. Similar weaknesses, but not as pronounced. And much better firepower for the Zero.

I would think the most prevalnet armament for a P-40 with the AVG would be 4 x .303 and 2 x .50. Still a bit underarmed, but far better than the K-43. I'd think the AVG also ran into Ki-27's a fair amount, which was a step down from the KI-43 in most ways. Turned a bit better, but that was never a problem for a Japanese plane, to turn better than it's opponents.

Garyt said:

That's what I mean - the Ki43 could actually "out zero" a zero, but was even more lacking in areas like armament. At best 2 x 50 caliber, more likely 2 x 7.7 mm in the early war period. Takes a lot of time on target to down a plane with that limited of firepower.

A Zero would have been different. Similar weaknesses, but not as pronounced. And much better firepower for the Zero.

I would think the most prevalnet armament for a P-40 with the AVG would be 4 x .303 and 2 x .50. Still a bit underarmed, but far better than the K-43. I'd think the AVG also ran into Ki-27's a fair amount, which was a step down from the KI-43 in most ways. Turned a bit better, but that was never a problem for a Japanese plane, to turn better than it's opponents.

Click to expand...

I believe the Ki27 was most of their fighter claims.

http://www.warbirdforum.com/avgaces.htm

The horizontal speed of an A/C was an indicator of other properties. The spitfire and Me109/Fw190 were adversaries for most of WW2 improvements on both sides were expressed in maximum speed but also indicated improvements in rate of climb and turn. The dive performance is slightly different, however the plane that is the better diver reaches ground level sooner, if your adversary is faster in level flight what have you gained tactically. You have a faster adversary on your tail who is at a higher altitude.

Fully Concur, Biif. Energy was near the top, as well as the ability to generate it quickly when surprised.

As you probably expect, I disagree with Bill, at least somewhat. He says the same things he always says and they are at odds with WWII fighter pilots I have spoken with. Yes, they DID have high speed fights, but NO, it wasn't at 420 mph most of the time ... except by the attackers who were diving down from above. If they were climbing up, nowhere NEAR that speed. If they joined the dive and chased the attackers, the bombers were unccovered.

Let's say that Bill and I have talked with a lot of different people and have come away with diverse points of view. Yes, they DID sometimes fight just as he says but, no, it wasn't all that often from the guys I have spoken with. Obviously he spoke with different guys who had different experiences, and I can respect that and say I wish I had been at least a listener.

So, they DID fight very fast some times, but not all the time. Not suprisingly, almost all situational encounters that can be imagined happened at SOME time.

I am not saying and never HAVE said high speed fights didn't happen; they DID. I said they were NOT the rule. A great plane could fight at 280 mph and at 470 mph in a dive. So, also not surprisingly, I think that the ability to fight a medium and high speeds was high on the list.

The Bf 109 was superb at 280 - 310 mph. Above 360 mph it was a handful and not very maneuverable. At 400+ mph, it was no longer much of a fighter, but could ingress or egress quickly at that speed, and hit something by ambush easily. The Spitfire and P-51 could fight pretty well at all those speeds. The Fw 190 was EXCELLENT except for behavior around the stall ... making it the last plane you wanted to be in for a slow-speed dogfight, unless you were very familiar with the steed and could operate safely near the limit.

So, I don't "discount" what Bill says at all; I embrace it as real. I'm sure he heard what he heard from people who were there and DID it. I also heard what I heard from people who were there and did it. Perhaps they were fighting in different theaters or perhaps they had different mission assignments. But I have spoken with guys who flew P-51s, P-47's, P-38's, P-40's ... never spoke with a pilot primarily assigned to P-39's personally. And I KNOW Bill did speak with many, too, growing up in a fighter family ... it was inevitable.

Makes me curious more than anything.

In a later war far, far away in a little country called Viet Nam, we dismissed the MiG-17 as obsolete in the early 1960's. By the late 1960's it had been re-appraised as a very potent dogfighter, despite being more than an entire Mach slower than the F-4. Turns out that in the heat of dogfight combat, they just happened to fight in the same speed envelope ... just subsonic. Speed clearly wasn't everything there, and that comes from former Viet Nam fighter pilots I served with later in the Mid-1970's. We had long discussion about the Soviet fighters and what they could and could not do. The highest-scoring North Vietnamese Ace flew MiG-17's.

I suspect that WWII had a LOT of the same, meaning the situation description you hear depends on who was there and what they were doing at the time against how many enemies in a favorable or unfavorable position and from a good or bad starting point, taking into account the number of enemy planes and the number of friendly planes in the local airspace and, especially, whether or not you were over friendly or hostile territory. There are a lot of forks in the story there that also include fuel state, ammunition state, and your own plane's damage at the time, and I have NO DOUBT that almost every one of the story forks happened on more than a few occasions.

Greg,

From reading your post I think you might have misinterpreted what my point was / is. I said that in a rank order of capabilities I would put speed at the top. The other traits / qualities would be list as well, handling, firepower, etc., but speed would be number 1.

Just because a fighter has a high top speed doesn't mean it will fight that way, or successfully shoot down enemy aircraft (EA) at a higher speed. It also doesn't mean it's not the number one attribute either.

If a plane has a high top speed, it's probably fast in the climb and accelerates better than most as well. If I have a plane that is faster than most but handles just so so, I will do hit and run. If my fast plane handles well, I will do hit and turn, then run if unsuccessful. If my fast plane handles better than my opponent, I will hit, turn and stick.

Should I turn and stick, I have entered the fight at a higher speed, which I can use to my advantage in a turn (pull tighter turn for longer) which allows me to arrive at that sweet spot (called the riding position or control zone), with very little angle off, in range of my weapons (at which point I would "employ" weapons - politically correct way of saying I would nail him). Speed gives me the advantage. Should the fight start not going my way, I would elect to leave using my better thrust to weight and gravity if it's available, to open the distance to a range greater than his weapons capabilities and go home. Or fly a distance away and see if I can re-attack.

As for Mig-17's versus non-gun equipped supersonic fighters there might be another way to interpret those fights. First, speed doesn't do much for destroying other fighters when the ID criteria almost eliminates your long range radar missile, the one with the highest probability of a kill (PK), and forces you to use a short range missile with a low PK. So low in fact that you had to be within just a few thousand feet of your opponent and within 30 degrees of his tail (and if you find yourself there the damn thing has to work which it didn't quite often). It's pretty easy in a subsonic fighter like the Mig-17 to keep an F-4 out of that regime.

Then there is the problem of not having a gun at all... Followed closely by the fact that the US training had strayed well away from finer points of air to air employment. Hence the invention of Top Gun (made famous in a movie by the same name) and the USAF's Weapons School.

All missiles in those days were dog crap for reliability and capability. Much better today. However, the lesson learned is the gun. Doesn't break often, isn't fooled by chaff or ECM, and doesn't give a hoot what fancy flying the other guy is doing. In range, in plane, in lead and you can nail him. In fact, they even put one on the F22 (albeit after considerable debate).

Cheers,
Biff

GregP said:

Fully Concur, Biif. Energy was near the top, as well as the ability to generate it quickly when surprised.

Greg - Energy is directly proportional to velocity and/or height in the case of Potential Energy. Excess Power over Drag is the road to achieve and maintain energy

As you probably expect, I disagree with Bill, at least somewhat. He says the same things he always says and they are at odds with WWII fighter pilots I have spoken with. Yes, they DID have high speed fights, but NO, it wasn't at 420 mph most of the time ... except by the attackers who were diving down from above. If they were climbing up, nowhere NEAR that speed. If they joined the dive and chased the attackers, the bombers were unccovered.

You missed the point... actually most or all of the points. First get rid of the 'bombers were uncovered' mantra when discussion whether a top attribute of a fighter is or isn't speed. Second, rejoin the discussion regarding WHY speed advantage is a very important attribute of a fighter - very simply Greg, it enables tactical options over a significantly Slower opponent. Fight ve Flight, 'chase and catch up' versus 'be left behind'. Get where you need to be sooner than the other guy.

Let's say that Bill and I have talked with a lot of different people and have come away with diverse points of view. Yes, they DID sometimes fight just as he says but, no, it wasn't all that often from the guys I have spoken with. Obviously he spoke with different guys who had different experiences, and I can respect that and say I wish I had been at least a listener.

By study and by Report, 90% of the aircraft destroyed never knew what hit them. 90% of the evasions from an enemy with a tactically superior position were to break into them while running up full throttle to gain the speed and/or position to regain the initiative or run away (from the Slower guy)

So, they DID fight very fast some times, but not all the time. Not suprisingly, almost all situational encounters that can be imagined happened at SOME time.

At no time did I state that fighting 'fast' all of the time - re-read what I said.

I am not saying and never HAVE said high speed fights didn't happen; they DID. I said they were NOT the rule. A great plane could fight at 280 mph and at 470 mph in a dive. So, also not surprisingly, I think that the ability to fight a medium and high speeds was high on the list.

Greg - I have not looked at every spec or even most of them but I have both participated in reading specifications for high performance aircraft including the A-7D, the F-16 and its Naval Derivative VFAX, plus looked at the original proposal document of the NA-91 that the Brits bought for the Mustang. There are zero specs regarding 'the ability to fight at medium to high speeds'. The Specs give high level objectives for 'maximum speed' at critical altitudes, Range, take Off and Landing performance, internal or external load carrying capability, crew, avionics, and in the case of certain AAF/USN/USAF specs - the GFE to be installed

So, Greg the next time you have a chance to talk to an ETO vet regarding their experience in either the ETO or MTO - ask them why they preferred the P-51 and P-47 over the P-40 and P-39 as both the P-40 and P-39 were 'excellent middle speed performers' that also were at a serious disadvantage to the Bf 109 and FW 190 - or ask former VVS opponents of the 109 why they highly regarded it through the end of the war - despite having several airplanes that out maneuvered the 109 (perhaps their judgment was not as severe as yours in context of speed and handling).

In a later war far, far away in a little country called Viet Nam, we dismissed the MiG-17 as obsolete in the early 1960's. By the late 1960's it had been re-appraised as a very potent dogfighter, despite being more than an entire Mach slower than the F-4. Turns out that in the heat of dogfight combat, they just happened to fight in the same speed envelope ... just subsonic.

Ah, here is an example of war overcoming pre-war training which USAF seemed to experience for both WWII and Vietnam. The MAJOR issues were F-105 pilots with only a handful of WWII and Korea fighter vets flying them encountering MiG 17s either vectored to their six coming off the target below 500-550 kts or deciding to stay and fight rather tan use HUGE speed advantage and escape. They compounded the performance disadvantage (namely forgetting about their SPEED advantage) by hanging around in the horizontal and bleeding energy to the point they could not escape from a lighter more nimble adversary. Interestingly the 355th TFW with Thuds was the leading MiG killer until late 1967 (including the F-8 and F4B/C). The solution which cut not only fighter losses but also flak and SAM was to keep the speed up to 550Kt and above - the other major issue was lousy performance of air to air missle and avionics technology resulting in only 2% effectiveness. The 105 had an internal M-61 and was the fastest ship on the deck until the F4E and F-111 - all capable of exceeding Mach 1 on the deck. The F4E with the M-61 didn't show up until 1970.

Speed clearly wasn't everything there, and that comes from former Viet Nam fighter pilots I served with later in the Mid-1970's. We had long discussion about the Soviet fighters and what they could and could not do. The highest-scoring North Vietnamese Ace flew MiG-17's.

Might we remind you that Speed is at or next to the top of a fighter requirements - not the only important requirement (i.e along with Range, Payload, Radar capability, Cruise speed, etc. There are ZERO specs for turn rate, but lot of discussion of landing speed which drives wing sweep, CL, AR, LE devices, etc - ALL influencing ultimate turn capability

The US was out of the fighter-fighter dogfight game (except in the vertical) after Korea and didn't enter it again until Boyd and others got the USAF planners to understand Energy maneuverability - which resulted in the F-16, then the F-15.

Click to expand...

Next time Bud Anderson is around POF, engage him in an unguided discussion regarding his preference for the P-51 and what he considered the primary advantage of the P-51 over what he trained to fight in, the P-39, when compared to the 109 flown by a very good pilot.

Folks, with regards to the Vietnam experience, let's not forget the tactical disadvantage our pilots were placed in, especially the -105 drivers, fighting a war dictated by politicians where air strikes were announced in advanced, predictable routes were flown and BVR engagements were prohibited despite the poor performance of air to air missiles (especially the Sparrow). Just a few years earlier, air-to-air combat was considered an obsolete concept by some of the "think tanks" within the Pentagon, a tragic policy that costs the lives of many American airmen, especially during the start of the war.

I look at this in contrast to today's world where there are those today who feel that manned combat aircraft are obsolete and that only combat drones should be developed to do all the fighting.

History does repeat itself!

The aircraft that has greater max speed should be able also to cruise faster. Extreme examples might be the members of Bf-109 family - the 109B or -D will be only as fast as the 109E cruises, the 109E will max out at 109F's cruise (if even so). Faster cruising will give enemy less opportunity to jump up to the 'fast cruiser'; for the Spitfire V drivers one of recommendations was to cruise faster in an area where Fw-190 might be expected.

FLYBOYJ said:

...I look at this in contrast to today's world where there are those today who feel that manned combat aircraft are obsolete and that only combat drones should be developed to do all the fighting.

History does repeat itself!

Click to expand...

It certainly does...

Unmanned drones are not a new technology, either...it was considered in WWI and again in WWII...

To quote King Solomon: "There is nothing new under the sun"

reading between the lines of the various postings I think the real situation was that there wasn't one overriding factor that was more important than any other. What mattered was having a balance and the skill of the pilot in flying it to its best advantage when compared with its opposition.
Lets take a Spit IX as used in the second half of the war. It was fast, not the fastest in the world but it was pretty good. It was agile but not as agile as a Zero. It had a poor initial dive speed but its never exceed speed was pretty good but not as fast as say a P47. It was very good at altitude and had a good climb but I am sure there were some aircraft that would have the edge. However no opponent in any fighter would consider it an easy opponent as it always had something it could use against the opposition.
This is far from being unique to the Spitfire. The P51 had a definite speed advantage, the P47 a dive advantage, most Japanese and Italian fighters were more agile. The trick was knowing what you had and how best to use it against the opposition and avoid situations where you couldn't use that advantage.

In general if an aircraft was designed to emphasise a particular factor the aircraft tended to be flawed. Italian fighters were until the last series were poorly armed, Japanese tended to be less well protected and or poorly armed. The 109f was often considered to be a step back as initially they lost much needed firepower, there are other examples but I think that is sufficient

FLYBOYJ said:

despite the poor performance of air to air missiles (especially the Sparrow). !

Click to expand...

I saw a discussion programme on this illustrated by an encounter between an F4 and a Mig 17. I cant remember the missile of the F4 but basically the time taken for the F4 to aquire, lock on and shoot was longer than the time for the mig to take evasive action. The F4 repeatedly "went vertical" when the Mig was maneuvering into a shooting position and the mig repeatedly lost the F4 when trying to target the missile. Eventually the Mig broke off for no reason that could be explained and was shot down. As I remember it with the equipment both had it was impossible for either plane to best the other with two experienced pilots on board.

pbehn said:

I saw a discussion programme on this illustrated by an encounter between an F4 and a Mig 17. I cant remember the missile of the F4 but basically the time taken for the F4 to aquire, lock on and shoot was longer than the time for the mig to take evasive action. The F4 repeatedly "went vertical" when the Mig was maneuvering into a shooting position and the mig repeatedly lost the F4 when trying to target the missile. Eventually the Mig broke off for no reason that could be explained and was shot down. As I remember it with the equipment both had it was impossible for either plane to best the other with two experienced pilots on board.

Click to expand...

This sounds like the Randy Cunningham MiG-17 dogfight. View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZiuAxisJZ-0

I must say that WW2 started off with Bi planes and wooden propellers in front line service and finished with Germany UK and US with Jets in service if not exactly operational. Everything revolved around speed, horizontal speed, speed in a dive speed in climb and in cruise. To argue that speed was not of vital importance is a bit strange considering it was most designers and pilots obsession. Research pushes the maximum speed other properties like climb and dive usually follow close behind, as pointed out earlier the maximum speed of a P39 in level flight came very close to its critical speed in a dive, a serious problem in the design which may not have been known when the plane first flew.

The Hurricane was just to say in the fight in the BoB, it could climb enough to intercept, it was fast and agile enough trouble a Bf109 sometimes but the speed differential was about 30MPH, when the Bf109 was uprated it was impossible to keep the Hurricane in the fight as a front line fighter, especially when the defensive advantages the Hurricane had were transferred to the 109 after 1940.

FlyboyJ, I cant say whether it was Randy Cunningham or not but it was a US ace in a different engagement. I distinctly remember the expression "go vertical" which the F4 did 3 times at least. The Mig broke off and just flew straight and level. It was impossible to tell if he was out of fuel, had a malfunction or was just overcome by G forces etc, if he hadn't done it the F4 couldn't get the upper hand with the missiles on board against that particular pilot.

It was Cunningham.

I'd say, Bill, that if one had a choice between a P-40 and P-51, the choice would be obyious, and please note I didn't ever say anybody would pick a P-40 over a P-51. Where exactly did that come from?

Since I'm an engineer, I'm well aware of the formula for kinetic energy.

Anybody who thinks about it doesn't expect a spec for fighting at medium speed. But you NEVER get the chance to get to maximum speed if you are bounced or if the bombers you are escorting are bounced while you are cruising overhead.

You get bounced at whatever speed you are going at the time. Your ability to get to maximum speed will be zero unless you roll over and head for the ground immediately. If the guys who bounced you come from above, they are already much faster than you and are no doubt back above you and can probably catch you anyway even if you accelerate with WER power.

I suppose we'll just have to disagree.

And you should get your head back to the bombers since that was the primary mission of the P-51 in the ETO, unless we read completely different histories. What was aked about were the important qualities of a fighter in order.

I never said speed wasn't important, I said it wasn't at the top ... and I don't think it is. If so, then surely a follow-on fighter should be faster than the one before it. That hasn't been the case since the F-15 came out 40+ years ago. I don't think an F-22 can catch an F-15. But it has WAY better avionics and can make moves an F-15 can't.

There were versions of the Bf 109 that, at the right height, were faster than a P-51. I'd still take the P-51, myself. The Spitfire also wasn't the fastest steed in the cloest, but I'd take one if I knew I was in for a fight.

We very probably have the same characteristics in mind for a fighter, but don't have them quite in the same order you do and likely won't. I don't need a re-education every time we talk with one another. We see much the same information with a slight shuffle of what was more important. In the relative world of personal opinion we really aren't all that far apart since we both see to be fans of the same war.

I sort of like it that we have different opinions because it keeps it interesting.