To MF: Will nitpick a couple of points with you. The Mustang and Spitfire weren't 'becoming more alike'. The late model Spitfires did NOT get more range. Then range of the Spitfire 21 was virtually identical to that of the MkXIV, and much less than that of the MkVIII. As to the Mustang, the USAAF of '45 clearly considered the P47N to be more useful than the Mustang, as 8th AF Mustang pilots were being retrained to fly Thunderbolts as soon as combat ended in Europe, in spite of there being no shortage of P51s. Also, your concept of a mass fight fails to take into cosideration the fact that the FW190D was just as fast as the comperable Mustang, and had a much better rate of climb. By your theory, the FWs should have gained the advantage. Historically, mass 'furballs' just didn't last long enough for things like that to have a serious effect. The qualities actually most useful were simply the ability to take and dish out damage. Put a hundred or more a/c in a limited area, and nearly everyone is both target and attacker. It came apart very quickly as pilots of both sides had to disengage from individual attackers.

Semantics. Energy is important because it gives you tactical options. The trouble with dumping energy for position is, get the kill or not, if there's another opponant there, you're a sitting target for him after you shoot. That's why the Vif'ing trick with the Harrier is so much fun training, but is almost never used in actual combat.

Of course g suits represented an advantage, I never said that high g loads can't be pulled. However, the dangers of a high speed stall are still present, even more so when a pilot can pull more g without blacking out thanks to a g suit. "As to the 'he doesn't see it coming, except for being surprised by the un-noticed appearnace of enemy a/c, the most dangerous situation came just after a pilot had shaken off one enemy. Too often, he would be attacked from another direction by a second opponant before he had time to (in modern parlance) regain situational awareness. Even if he was maneuvering beyond the reach of an initial opponant, he might well be a predictable, and reachable target for someone else. That Spitfire in the tight turn might be beyond reach of the 190 trying to chase him around, but he would not be beyond the reach of a second 190 spiraling down on him from above." Yes all pretty obvious but it also ties into what MF has said as well, but my point was that just because the majority of pilots shot down never saw their attacker until it was too late doesn't mean that they were shot down in straight and level flight, they could have well been in a dogfight.

Usually was AE. The classic 'target fixation' and lack of situational awareness, which is why wingmen were so important and blister hoods introduced. Situational awarness declines as the numbers go up, basically because the brain can only process so many independent variables at once (on average 7). The aces were not necessarily the best pilots or the best shooters, but they were all good at SA, being able to keep and update a mental map of where everything and themselves were. 3 dimensional chess in real time.

"The late model Spitfires did NOT get more range." The Mk XVI, FR XIV, XVIII, F.24 all had significantly longer ranges than the original Spitfire. They could also carry combat drop tanks. Seafires also got a pretty big increase in range, Seafire 47s had 152 gallons of internal fuel and could carry 2 22.5 gallon combat tanks plus a centerline tank. "Also, your concept of a mass fight fails to take into cosideration the fact that the FW190D was just as fast as the comperable Mustang, and had a much better rate of climb. By your theory, the FWs should have gained the advantage." Doras probably would gain the advantage below 20,000'. I would put the 190D above the Me-109K as the best late war German prop fighter. The Tempest and Spitfire XIV were the best aircraft for handling 190Ds because they had the performance edge at most altitudes.

To AE: Yes, many were, but that supports my argument. In my yo-yo example, one the the biggest reasons it's an effective counter for a tight turn is that the attacker is pulling less 'g' than the defender. In WW2, pulling a turn until you 'greyed' out was common, but in modern tactics it's a cardinal sin. By deliberately 'greying' himself, the pilot loses the ability to keep track of his opponant's actions. He pulled the horizontal turn expecting his opponant to follow. In spite of the turn, his movement is predictable, and the ability to predict the target's movement is the first requirement for hitting him. You don't have to be in the turn with him, only in a position to fire into the airspace he's going to fly thru. And he can't dodge what he doesn't see coming.

To MF. Yes. That's right on the money. Which is why big fights were so short that the idea of 'winning' by dominating the opposition as a mass is silly. For a few seconds, everyone mills around shooting and being shot at, then everyone is either trying to disengage, or chasing someone. I don't think I've ever read a first person account of WW2 a2a where the pilot didn't remark on the way the sky could be filled with a/c, then be completely empty within second.

The MkXVI was identical to the MkXI except for the engine manufacturer. The MkXVIII never saw combat, and the modified wing witn the etruded main spar that made increased fuel stowage possible was considered too expensive and not used again. These a/c only had range superior to the MkI becasue it didn't use external tanks and they did. I have no numbers for anything beyond the Mk22, but, except for the MkVIII, none had a range on internal fuel as great as the MkI.

Late model Mk IX & XVI were fitted with rear fuselage tanks, I'll get the sizes later.

-Mk XVI had an extra 66 gallons of fuel compared to most Mk IX -More Mk XVIIIs were produced than 21s,22s or 24s. XVIIIs were along a different line of development to the 2X's. They were derived from the same line as the VIII and XIV. The 21 was a development of the original Mk IV prototype. Does it matter whether or not it saw combat? It only matters that designers were trying to improve range to make Spitfires more Mustang like. The only variant that I know of that had a shorter range than the Mk I was the Mk IX and then it was only marginal, something like 30 miles.