Warbird Information Exchange

Now I am NOT a fighter pilot, at this point don't really want to be one (like James above) and don't have ANY formal training - just a lot of L-bird reading and some experience looking for traffic as a CFI while trying to keep my students alive.

This dogfight scenario assumes a couple of things, and leaves out some other very important ones - including camouflage and terrain, and I'm sure a lot of other issues I'm not even clued in to.

Just thinking out loud, in an L-bird, if I survived a fighter's first pass and saw it then - I think it'd be fairly easy to keep it in sight and try to judge the turns to throw it off. The liaison pilots in theater were very careful to keep a lookout for enemy fighters, and often had an extra set of eyes in the back. The normal tactic then would be to drop down to treetop level and skedaddle. A properly camouflaged Extra could easily do this as well. On the other hand, if your camouflage didn't work out with the terrain, or if your shadow gave you away (That's a Cub collision avoidance maneuver ), it could be curtains fairly quickly. And with the high wing in the Cub, I'd likely never see something coming out of the sun, which would be fairly easy for a fighter to do.

Ryan

_________________
Aerial Photographer with Red Wing Aerial Photography currently based at KRBD and tailwheel CFI.
Websites: Texas Tailwheel Flight Training, DoolittleRaid.com and Lbirds.com.

The horse is prepared against the day of battle: but safety is of the LORD. - Prov. 21:31 - Train, Practice, Trust.

The observation type scenario is a consistent one in the W.W.II arena, including Advanced Air Striking Force Lysanders and Armee de l'Air observation types (including LeO autogiros) and later allied AOP Austers (British Taylorcraft) and the L Birds. At lower levels, provided the l bird pilot saw an attacking fighter or fighters, they had a good chance of evading for the time a fighter was prepared to dice with them in the bushes. Some even got their attacker to fly into terrain. However the overall numbers are telling.

So, to take a mathematical model, on an individual basis, while it's not possible to be certain of one combat's result, it is certain that over multiple actual combats - the higher performance / heavier armed opponent will down the lower performance aircraft more frequently. One reason that air force spend money on trying to get a performance edge.

Just a couple of thoughts,

_________________
James K

"Switch on the underwater landing lights"
Emilio Largo, Thunderball.

www.VintageAeroWriter.com

While that's certainly correct and valid, I seriously doubt that the people advocating the "Mustang wins, hands down" position were doing so based on the evaluation of such evidence. If they were, then my mistake, but I saw no evidence of that.

The reason I prefaced my post with that statement was not be be elitist or condescending, but rather to point out that experience is the only truly valid way of gaining an understanding of, and appreciation for, all of the numerous variables present in a 1 v 1 dogfight. So frequently I hear (on television, on the internet, at airshows) people talk about dogfights as if they were tests between sheets of statistics, plugged into a computer, and wargamed to a logical end. That often seems to be the way that non-fliers resolve such "who is best" discussions, and the reality is that while the numbers games are important factors, they ignore many other random factors that are just as important (not the least of which is the human factor). If the number crunching was a valid technique, then every day that I've gone out and fought F-15E vs F-15E BFM should have ended in the same dead stalemate (which, in case it's not obvious, isn't what always happens even between two competent pilots) since the aircraft are both equal on paper.

So, I made my comment to point out that much of the discussion in the thread was based on some opinions that were simply ignorant to many of the factors that play in to the argument.

_________________

Unfortunately, an overly simplistic view of both the problem and the solution.

Don't forget that air forces spend far, far more than that amount on training the crews, on developing the tactics, and practicing execution of those tactics.

If performance stats were that important, then those whiz-bang airplanes could just sit on the ramp and look pretty until they were needed in combat...and then those performance factors would really kick butt.

_________________

Reminds me of that time a couple years ago when DJ handed your head to you on a platter while fighting on Playstation and your comment was something to the effect of "Well, if we ever go to war in a simulator, you're gonna kick ass!"

_________________
Offer me solutions, offer me alternatives, and I decline......

Doug Masters, a tape deck and one .50 Cal in that EZ.., and it would be lights out to anyone, anywhere.., anytime!!

_________________
S.

During the War of Attrition, two Israeli Fouga Magisters tangled with a Syrian MiG-21J and managed to get the Syrian pilot to fly it into the ground. The dogfight was documented in the book "Zanek" by William Stevenson.

And don't forget the Katangese Fouga that had half of the United Nations chasing it for months without being able to catch it. It even bombed a United Nations press conference
They truly are THE superior fighter planes

_________________
Magister Aviation
It's all in my book

how about a zero? OR up against an f4u-4 corsair???

_________________
" I am a nobody in aviation, but somebody to my family."

all depends on the pilots.

_________________
S.