Page 11 of 11
RE: Flying torches
Posted: Thu Apr 24, 2008 6:07 pm
by mdiehl
I'm not sure if a MIG ever shot down a Huey or not, it would not normally be a priority target for a fighter but if no Huey was ever shot down by a MIG then the Huey would be a better A/C because he attained a 0:1 loss ratio.
That is not correct. If one Huey on one occasion engaged a MiG and shot it down, the information would be interesting but of very little empirical value because a sample size of ONE engagement doesn't tell you much. The reason why loss ratios of F4Fs vs A6Ms matter is because these ratios were achieved over a period of five months in scores of battles comprised of hundreds of plane-vs-plane encounters. Sample size matters.
RE: Flying torches
Posted: Thu Apr 24, 2008 8:06 pm
by OG_Gleep
Thought this was interesting. Spitfire vs Hap (A6M3 M32)
RE: 100 Octane
Posted: Thu Apr 24, 2008 10:25 pm
by tocaff
The US had the very good fortune that an man who thought of the future was in a position to have the oil companies producing 100 octane gas. This fuel gave additional power to engines resulting in an advantage for American planes.
RE: Flying torches
Posted: Fri Apr 25, 2008 8:51 pm
by anarchyintheuk
ORIGINAL: SuluSea
Can any
one [heavy emphasis on ONE!!!!] that says the Wildcat couldn't maneveur explain how Pug Sutherland got on Saburo Sakai's tail when Sakai had the jump on him after he shot down another Zero? If Sutherland's guns didn't jam Sakai would have been toast.
Secrets of the Dead "Dogfight over Guadalcanal" is a very good program for those who haven't viewed it.
Googled it....
Enjoy
That was an excellent show. Shame part of the plane was covered by that mudslide.
I had also forgotten how badly Sakai was wounded during the campaign. Pretty amazing he made it back to base.
RE: Flying torches
Posted: Fri Jun 06, 2008 5:25 am
by Sheytan
You are wrong...simple. Again, wrong...the French had not fully delivered the contract number of missiles that had been ordered. This WAS the ONLY constraint for the Argies. Again your wrong and frankly you need to do more research and less preaching ;}.
ORIGINAL: Ike99
Argentine Mirages operating at their extreme ranges. Come on Ike the Brits weren't stupid enough to make things easier. Those Mirages were only carrying 1 Exocet missile instead of 2 because Argentina didn't have many of them. The Harrier had a superior electronic suite than the Argentinian Mirages and in the modern world electronics are at least the equal in importance as any other attribute as long as the fight is in the missile envelope and not at gun range.
Tocaff. Argentine Mirages are fighters, not capable of carrying Exocets. The Mirage fighters were not capabale of refueling in the air at that time.
The Argentine Super E´s are modified, and do, and did, carry the Exocet. Not the Mirages. No, they did not carry one Exocet because there were not many of them. It was for fuel reasons. Under the left wing was a drop tank for extra fuel and under the right the Exocet.
Despite this extra drop tank it was still necessary to meet a KC130 tanker for inflight refueling during every Exocet mission.
But this is about 40 years off topic and will have to wait until Matrix publishes a Malvinas wargame. I just wanted to correct you on this.
