8. Lastly the ability to turn in the so called "Dog Fight"!

 

Yeah "lastly" is correct....this is about the last quality of a fighter.  You can fight in the vertical, as well as the horizontal...plus, the turn rate needs to be qualified as to speed and altitude....the supposedly nimble A6M was not so nimble above 200 Kt.'s.

How about defensive systems like self sealing fuel tanks and armor?  Since the main sensor is the MK I eyeball how about points for visibility?  What about the aircraft's general accident and reliability ratings?  This aside how are the 8 qualities listed weighted? I'd suggest aircraft range is generally under appreciated in importance.

 

Moreover, is only air to air ability to be considered and if so why not say best air to air fighter?  That aside under the metrics listed how does the F-4F rate against the A-6M and do the metrics explain how the Wildcat was able to hold it's own?  Same question for how the 1941/42 FW190's owned the skies vs the Spitfire (specifically the Spit V).

How about defensive systems like self sealing fuel tanks and armor?  Since the main sensor is the MK I eyeball how about points for visibility?  What about the aircraft's general accident and reliability ratings?  This aside how are the 8 qualities listed weighted? I'd suggest aircraft range is generally under appreciated in importance. Moreover, is only air to air ability to be considered and if so why not say best air to air fighter?  That aside under the metrics listed how does the F-4F rate against the A-6M and do the metrics explain how the Wildcat was able to hold it's own?  Same question for how the 1941/42 FW190's owned the skies vs the Spitfire (specifically the Spit V).
Since most of the metrics I posted are hard numbers, scoring is easy. The Wildcat was only able to "hold it's own" after a strategic change in tactics that was not countered by the IJN. When I first read this, I thought that you ment F4F Phanton jet Vs A6M Zero because i did not pick up on the Wildcat later in the sentance.

But even more fun, I can not at this second remember if the F had a gun or not, but it makes little difference! If the Sparrow works, it's gonners for two or three Zeros for the first and maybe second missile as well. Then, if they all work, two more Zeros go down. Then it's down to 'winders and four more bite the dust! I do not know how many you could get with the gun, but does it matter?

The best fighter is the one that is available in sufficient numbers at a given time which, all other things such as pilot quality, relative numerical strength, fuel supplies, leadership etc being equal, has the characteristics necessary to gain air superiority over the enemy. There is no set technical formula of prioritised traits that achieves this, just combinations of desirable traits. Combinations of traits that allow the fighter to fight and win over all the missions and situations, expected or unexpected, that can be reasonably expected of the fighter are what it make it the best.

 

Remember also that 80% of air to air kills involve complete surprise, and a fighter doesn't need to be "great" in order to achieve kills like that. It is the other 20% of kills where things don't go ideally that sort the great fighters out from the good and not so good ones. I think we would have a hard time finding an ace who achieved all of his kills without ever having to fight (yes, dogfight) his way out of a hairy situation when things went wrong. If he was in an aircraft that couldn't do that, well, he wouldn't have achieved the score that he actually did, would he.

 

 

The best fighter is the one that is available in sufficient numbers at a given time which, all other things such as pilot quality, relative numerical strength, fuel supplies, leadership etc being equal, has the characteristics necessary to gain air superiority over the enemy. There is no set technical formula of prioritised traits that achieves this, Wrong! There are easily prioritized traits that can achieve that and All the other missions you outline below. just combinations of desirable traits. Combinations of traits that allow the fighter to fight and win over all the missions and situations, expected or unexpected, that can be reasonably expected of the fighter are what it make it the best. Remember also that 80% of air to air kills involve complete surprise, No, the correct or closest figure is 90-95% with the most thoughough and detailed studdy ever done giving 93%! and a fighter doesn't need to be "great" in order to achieve kills like that. That is absolutely right and it does not need to "Dogfight" either! It is the other 20% of kills5-10% range, best estimate 7%! where things don't go ideally that sort the great fighters out from the good and not so good ones. I think we would have a hard time finding an ace who achieved all of his kills without ever having to fight (yes, dogfight) his way out of a hairy situation when things went wrong. If he was in an aircraft that couldn't do that, well, he wouldn't have achieved the score that he actually did, would he.
I believe that your main premis is faulty in that a plane that is SIGNIFICANTLY faster, or heavier can easily evade a dogfight, but a good dogfighter has only one way to eascape a faster attacker and that is to turn the tables and fight his way out. Which way do you think is more conducive to staying alive? As a example, the faster/heavier plane bounces the slower dogfighter, but fails to kill. Knowing he has missed his attack and the target has commited to the break turn to spoil further attacks, all he has to do is pull back and slightly to the side on the control stick to escape AND set himself up for a second try. If the rolls are reversed, the lighly wing loaded dogfighter can not so effectivly reverse the procedure. (The low wing loaded plane is not as fast and does not zoom climb as well as his high wing loaded enemy!)

 

I'd add the caveat that I think it would be hard to find an ace who didn't have to dogfight, where the enemy was evenly matched on other matters. Turkey shoots against half trained Japanese and German pilots at the end of the War don't count.

Actually according to Spick not only was Hartman not the best, he wasnt even the best German Ace, he just encounted more target per sortee and flew more sorties than the rest, if you compare kills per contact hartman is only the 73 best german ace (and a number of british canadian, austrailian and american aces feature a lot higher)

 

Shooter has a tendancy to fit facts to his vision of the world and ignore anything that does fit his world.

 

A pure boom a zoom fighter will only be succssfull if you can control the fight, if you cant then you end up with a just a target somthing that once started will only get worse.

 

a few points, first cl guns suffer though loss of rof (especially the .5 browning) unless you have a pusher or a twin (which both have its own problem)

persistance - one of his all time favorite, is a complete red herring, more range than you need is pointless, fuel is weight which is bad, the best fighter will only carry enough to do its job, the mustang in RAF service only had a fraction of the range of the USAAF operated aircraft as the RAF had no need of the extream range

 

rate of roll, nice but not hugely important the MKIX spit could be out rolled by the 190 but that did not give the 190 significant advantage as the climb  and dive did over the mkV with the cliped wings (the MkIX didnt get the clipped wings which it would have done if it had been such a deal breaker)

 

cl guns whilst nice to were less important than exploding cannons, which if cl mounted were the best but even wing cannons were superior to mg on the centerline, the longest range confirmed kill in WW2 was by a MkV spit with 20mm wing mounted cannons