The problem with hit and run attacks is that the enemy is never decisively engaged. No doubt it is an effective method for running up kills safely. However, whatever remains of the enemy formation retains cohesion can continue on their mission. Unless you can stay and fight you are giving up control of the air. That's why the Mustang was so revolutionary. It not only was able dogfight German interceptors but it also had enough fuel to do it over Germany. "Remember, over the history of air combat, at least three-quarters of fighter shot down, were killed by somebody they didn't spot until they were under fire." That doesn't mean they weren't in close combat at the time though does it. Another thing is that unless a fighter climb well enough to counter attack enemy aircraft attacking it in the verticle it is at an instant disadvantage.

I'm with you AE. I'll take controlled experiments over opinions anyday. Its called science. If it disagrees with my cherished belief, so much for the belief. Can't pick and choose, we want controlled experiments for (say) the drugs we take, or bridges we drive over, or the cars we drive, but then reject the same methodology when it disagrees with an opinion? Might as well agrue that a VW beetle is safer in a collision than a current Volvo, yep all the tests shows that the Volvo is safer, but I like VW's so I'll ignore that result. That line of argument is called sophistry (=logic and scientific facts mean nothing).

Right again AE - its about bringing 'decisive battle'. Bringing the enemy to a point where a clear victory can be achieved. That's what happened in the BOB, Malta and the BOG (Battle of Germany). Decisive victories were won. Again you are right, the Mustang was the critical weapon in decisively beating the Luftwaffe over Germany. It could destroy the bomber destroyers (Me-110, 410 and armoured 190s) and was markedly superior to the current fighter killers (Me-109s), could stick around for repeated attacks, then chase them back to their bases. Though its climb was average, its speed and range meant it could disengage (virtually at will), create distance and then climb back up again and re-engage, as well as having the overall manoeuverability to mix it. The key thing was that it could stay, not just some slashing attack and sodding off home. Thus it could bring decisive battle to the enemy.

"You missed the point. It's the finding about the FWs ability to escape by turn reversal and dive when tailed in a tight turn. The MkVs only advantage was superior horizontal turning, but the FW could still escape it easily, negating any chance to use it as anything except a defensive maneuver. Compared to the MkV, the MkIX was a virtually identical airframe with a more powerful engine. Climb, acceleration and level speed would all improve, but it would have little effect on roll rate, meaning that the reversal tactic would still be effective. The production of the 'clipped wing' Spitfires was an attempt to reduce the roll rate disadvantage, but involved reducing wing area and wing shape efficiency (which was primarily due to the wing tip shape minimizing vortex drag). That meant that the RAF was accepting a reduction in the Spitfire's horizontal turn advantage, and increases in take off run and stall speed, etc. because it's slow roll rate was too big a tactical disadvantage." No mate, you missed the point. Whatevery your theorising about individual aspects of the '190's vs the Mk-9's performance, the history in combat shows that the Mk-9 did redress the imbalance between the Spit and the '190. The fact that is did this with a mere engine change or a wing clipping is simply more proof of what a brilliant piece of engineering that the Spit was. As soon as a model started to get a bit uncompetitive, you could put a new donk in it and it would be back on the leading edge with newer types. That ability kept it competitive from 1938 through to the end of the war... a feat that only the Me-109 came close to matching. Really this is just another example of how pointless the approach that your approach to this argument is. You are picking out favourable performance traits of other types compared to the Spit, in an attempt to support your argument that it wasn't a top notch aeroplane. Sometimes the types that you are comparing to a given mark of Spit aren't even contemporary. It seems silly to me, because in terms of overall performance from late '43 on there really wasn't that much difference between the '190, the best US types, the Spit and(from '44) the Tempest(the '109 was starting to get tired by then). They all had advantages and disadvantages that could be capitalised on by pilots who knew how to use them. The big advantage that I will grant the P-38, 47 and 51 was range. However, the Spit could do the shorter range work that it was designed for and I still think it was extrodinary that it was around the leading-edge performance wise for so long.

To AE. Where can I find the report you referrence??? The context of the comment was mock combat at varying altitudes over England between RAF Spitfire Vs and IXs and 56th FG P47Cs in early 1943, shortly after the arrival of the Thunderbolts. The RAF report for AVIATION HISTORY which I quoted earlier had no context beyond being a comparison of a Spitfire VB and a FW-190A-3. The reversal manuever was described as having been tested repeatedly, without referrence to altitude or speed of the a/c involved with the consistant result: "the pilot of the Spitfire experienced great difficulty following the maneuver ..."

To MF: note that the term used in the report is "the normal A.V.T.40 float type carurettor", and the report tests were in Oct-Dec. '42, and the "inability to withstand negative 'g' without cutting out" is described as being an "inherant weakness". Perhaps they are referring to something more than instantanious negative 'g' that you've referred to. By the way, how do they define "instantanious" in they context, since all netagive 'g' effects from acrobatics will last for a least a meansurable period of time??

To AE. It's correct that surprise could occassionally be achieved in close combat, however, all modern air combat tactics are based on the need to generate as many intitial attacks as possible in order to both achieve surprise as often as possible, but to avoid being surprised. Refusing to engage in turning combat doesn't preclude decisive engagement. The difference is combat style and the range at which you shoot. Repeated high speed attacks are every bit as effective as getting into a turning contest which often precludes a decisive result because it ties up the attacking force as much as the defender. With open style combat, the attacker retains his tactical flexibility. Remember that, even by the end of WW2, the 'fluid four' style was replacing the 'welded wing' style of combat, because it was so much more effective. It was developed and first used by the USN. The first flight to apply it "at the Battle of the Philippine Sea" was described by other units that saw the effects as "the mowing machine".

But when the results of the 'experiments' contradict extensive real world experiences, there's probably something wrong with either the experiment, or its interpretation. Remember that it can be scientifically proven that a bumble bee cannot possibly fly.

To MF. I have to conclude that you are deliberately mis representing the difference between open combat and close combat. It was the turning contest style that was not decisive. In open combat, repeated attacks generated kills and shredded a formation. In a turning contest, the very great majority of engagements ended without result, the pursued managed to evade the attacker he knew was behind him, and both pilots went home.

To AEG: I did not say that the MkIX didn't return the advantage to the RAF over the FWs and '109s. My point is that the difference in roll rate was a serious tactical problem that had to be adressed. My real problem is this: The Spitfire was an excellent piece of engineering that met the requirements for which it was designed very well indeed. But it was still a piece of engineering, and the engineering decisions in the design contained weaknesses as well as strengths. This is true of all engineering decisions. You fellows have even agreed to that, as a theory. But whenever a resulting weakness is pointed out, then come the howls of protest at the idea that the Spitfire is less than supreme at ANYTHING (except manybe range, and that doesn't really count because the Spitfire didn't need it, so obviously it wasn't needed at all). Actural combat experience as well as mock combats showed that the Spitfire's low roll rate was a serious drawback. Against a MkIX, it was one of very few advantages a FW-190A still had to exploit. The wing clipping at least partially redressed this, but (as with all engineering decisions) it came with a price. The clipped wing versions had longer take off run, higher stall speed and, of course, gave up some of its tight turn advantage and alititude performance. Now, what part of that statement do you want to debate??