what!!!! the only aircraft I know hat required such a lengthy procedure to go from cruise to combat was the P38 in 1940

 

max continoues is not emergency power and niether is cruise, you are trying to justify your self by twisting facts again

 

the extra weight of fuel is always a undesirable, as it atkes even more fuel to transport it so loading a fighter with fuel is not something that is done lightly, in fact a lot of effort is spent today on trying to ensure the minimum fuel is loaded on a aircraft to do its job, you dont find F16 on intercept missions flying with every pillon fitted with the larges doptanks possible - overfueling is, was and will allways be depremental to a fighter (or any other aircraft )

Shooter, stop making a fool of yourself, I'm feeling embarrassed on your behalf. You are supposed to be proving that the RAF got their arses handed to them in 1943-1944. Instead, you give us links of operations in 1942 and 1945? I mean, WTF?!

 

What's more, we have already established that the predominantly Spitfire MkVs got a schlocking over Dieppe. The FW-190 was significantly better than them and the Mk-IXs had not entered service in sufficient numbers to counter the threat. We know this because I RAISED IT earlier. I also pointed out that the FW-190 was better than any type in the World at that time save the new Mk-IX and the Typhoon at low-level. The Americans certainly weren't providing anything as good as the British types to counter it! 

 

As for Operation ..... in 1945, your statistics prove nothing. All that link say's is that one author claims that 57 German aircraft were shot down while 67 to 73 allied, British and US aircraft were shot down in return. Your interpretation about hundreds of Spitfires being shot down is pure bullshit, most of the allied aircraft destroyed were destroyed on the ground and a mix of aircraft were destroyed in the air, including a fair few P-47s.

 

BTW, here is a link that describes the kill ratios in the North-West Frontier between RAAF Spitfires and Imperial Japanese forces. 44 Spitfires were lost but only 17 due to enemy action, while there were 63 confirmed and another 13 probable kills on Jap planes. So much for the Spitfires "being handed their arses". 

 

http://www.awm.gov.au/collection/records/awmohww2/air/vol2/awmohww2-air-vol2-ch7.pdf.

 

Finally, your deletion of the German aces opinions, based on their experience, against the P-38 in the Med is hilarious. Did you really think that we wouldn't notice? The supposedly superior cruising speed of the P-38 didn't save them from becoming compressed Coke cans in the Desert, did it.

 

 

Here is the link.

 

http://www.awm.gov.au/collection/records/awmohww2/air/vol2/awmohww2-air-vol2-ch7.pdf

 

The operation I was referring to was of course Bodenplatten and the Allied numbers shot down (according to Werner Girbig) was 65 to 75. That's it from me, dealing with crappy software to argue with idiots isn't a fun or productive use of my time. 

are you serious? do you actually believe this? the mind boggles at how wrong you often are
 

Shows what you know! The ONLY differance was that the P-38 had ONE Additional Control to adjust and there were two engines to do it to! ( But the controls were "Ganged" and still only required FOUR ACTIONS to complete! ALL other Aircraft of the period, EXCEPT the FW-190, required THREE Actions to go from cruise to combat power, WO burning up the engine!
 
Not at all! We are just calling several different throttle settings used in cruise different things. ANY Cruise speed less than Max Cont is Cruising Speed! Max continous IS COMBAT CRUISE SPEED, while thye so called 5, 15, or 30 minute restricted rate is Combat Power.
 

 True! But, have you ever noticed that the smaller planes LIKE the F-16 never go ANYWHERE WO drop tanks in the real world? Haven't you ever woundered why they designed "Conformal" Fuel Tanks for the F-16 and most people/nations with any sort of range issue have bought them? Not to mention the F-15E.

I sincerely appologize for those mistakes. But I could not find a link or article on Wiki to the cross channel sweeps made by the RAF between the BoB and the landings in 1944. Durring this time, all 2-1/2 years, the RAF lost many more planes than they shot down! In the first six months or so of 1944, long after the Mk-IX was there in force, they lost FOUR times as many! This was such a scandle at the time, post war, that it never was mentioned in the papers at that time.
I freely admit, I am not good at all diging up stuff on line,  but if you or any one who is good at that sort of thing, you can find a six month period when the RAF Claimed over 700 kills, for over 400 losses! Post war, we find out the Germans only lost ~100 planes and claimed the ~400 the RAF admits to loosing! That is a 1/4+ K/L ratio! While the RAF Claimed more planes than they lost, post war we found it to be the absolute reverse! Do some research, because I admit, I can not find it over the last two days.

what!!!! the only aircraft I know hat required such a lengthy procedure to go from cruise to combat was the P38 in 1940
   
Shows what you know! The ONLY differance was that the P-38 had ONE Additional Control to adjust and there were two engines to do it to! ( But the controls were "Ganged" and still only required FOUR ACTIONS to complete! ALL other Aircraft of the period, EXCEPT the FW-190, required THREE Actions to go from cruise to combat power, WO burning up the engine!

 

show you know nothing as the TURBOCHARED engine in the P38 required a lot more management than he SUPERCHARGED engines in most other aircraft,  

max continoues is not emergency power and niether is cruise, you are trying to justify your self by twisting facts again

Not at all! We are just calling several different throttle settings used in cruise different things. ANY Cruise speed less than Max Cont is Cruising Speed! Max continous IS COMBAT CRUISE SPEED, while thye so called 5, 15, or 30 minute restricted rate is Combat Power. 

 it is amazing how your definitions are at odds with everyone elses, to take your point aabout jump off bridges, if everyone is jumping it makes sense to check why you are the ONLY one not, whilst you may be correct evidence points to you being wrong

the extra weight of fuel is always a undesirable, Is that why ~50% of all GCI missions flown in the BoB FAILED to make their intercept points?

no the reason why was the intercept was not achieved, extra fuel made little difference and would normally mean that they were too low even if they did intercept. aicraft were fueled for minimum endurance and maximum performance (as did germany when intercepting USAAF later in the war)

it is worthy of note that drop tanks were always ejected prior to combat even if full yet by your argument they would be kept

 as it atkes even more fuel to transport it True! so loading a fighter with fuel is not something that is done lightly, in fact a lot of effort is spent today on trying to ensure the minimum fuel is loaded on a aircraft to do its job, True! you dont find F16 on intercept missions flying with every pillon fitted with the larges doptanks possible Not True! F-16 almost always take off with either the two big wing tanks, we do not even stock the small ones here, or the 600 galloon CL Tank!!

realy so youd fuel your fighter for 500miles even if its a 50 mile trip?

 True! But, have you ever noticed that the smaller planes LIKE the F-16 never go ANYWHERE WO drop tanks in the real world? Haven't you ever woundered why they designed "Conformal" Fuel Tanks for the F-16 and most people/nations with any sort of range issue have bought them? Not to mention the F-15E.

maybe because they are peacetime missions ot combat, why do they use inflight refueling and not just load all the fuel on to strt with?

maybe you do a bit of reading about those operations, maybe just maybe the loses were more about the way the operations were conducted rather than the aircraft? why should we do your digging it you that is making the claime yet you now say that you cannot be bothered to actaul reasearch your posts then why should we bother taking you seriously? no wonder one poster took to calling you walter mitty

on your comparison are you being delibrately misleading or stupid?

 

if you comapare tow things it is only honest to compair like with like, here you use the Max climb rate of the P38 and the climb rate of the Spit at 22000ft+

 

a like to like would be

P38

Rate of climb... : 4,750 ft/min  maximum

Spitfire MkXIV

Rate of climb... : 5,040 ft/min   maximum

 

you use this technique so often that I am convinced that it is delibrate and makes you very dishonset

Not at all! Because of the fleeting nature of furball dynamics, you must concentrate as much fire power as possible under the piper to maximize lethality! thier was no film as this action was over malta and whilst confirmed at the time no film survived (in fact I dont think any gun camera film survives from that conflict) Nuts! Too bad! But what can you say about watching the "Golden" BB at work!

 

so if its not your choice of plane its a goldern bb if it is then its the plane/gun

 

have you actually read Spick? he comments that whilst cl guns are great for the ace with great shootng skills wing guns are better for those average pilots and poorer shots (of which many aces were)

 

When the LW deleted the wing 20mm from the 109 the kills made by average pilots fell