PDA

View Full Version : This is what many forum people needs to read before discussing what plane is the greatest. ;)



XyZspineZyX
10-03-2003, 08:58 PM
READ!
he explains it all.
P-40/Zeros and others
this is what everybody here on the Forum should know.
AND IM NOT TALKING ABOUT THE P-40

FOLLOW THIS LINK FOR THE WHOLE TEXT:
http://yarchive.net/mil/p40.html



>If the P-40B was so brilliant, how come the Zeros and Oscars shot them
>out of the sky in the Pacific and SE Asia war zones in 1941/2?

Answer:
I will answer this question with an analogy. If I give you a high
powered rifle and tell you it is a club, and you foolishly use it as a
club, and I give another person a 45 cal. pistol, and he knows how to
use it. Who do you think will be the victor.

The same applies to fighters.

If you don't use your equipment properly, you are going to lose the
fight. The Americans unfortunately had been taught the antiquated
dogfighting technic that had been used in WW I, and wasn't successful
against the Zero.

The answer to your question. In the early stages of the war the allied
pilots were not using their equipment correctly. (For your
information, the Allies never built an airplane that could turn inside
the Zero below 200 mph.) So how do you think we eventually outfought
them at every engagement. CHANGE OF TACTICS

In 1943, when the P-38 was first used in the Pacific, the Zero pilots
were shooting them down in large numbers. (See Subro Sakai's book
Zero.)

Isn't this amazing when you consider that the P-38's top speed was 100
mph faster than the Zero, and pilots were still trying to dogfight the
Zero.

Chennault had written a manual on fighter tactics, which discouraged
dogfighting as outdated. The military brass disagreed with Chennault,
and as a result Chennault was given an early retirement from the Army
Air Corps. Unfortunately the American military took Chennault for a
Fool. The same as the court martial board had taken Billy Mitchell as
a fool, when he claimed that bombers could sink any battle ship afloat.
Even though he proved it by sinking a German WW I battleship he was
court martialed.

>Why did the RAF ship all of theirs out to less critical war zones or to the
>USSR?

Answer:
The Brits are an amazing people and this is not intended as a put down.
I don't pretend to be able to answer what was in the mind of the
British Air Arm at the time. However, this question is best answered
by another question, and a comment.

My guess is that whom ever high ranking RAF that made such a decision,
were not very good judges of aircraft. My guess was that President
Roosvelt pressured the Brits into releasing 100 P-40s which were to be
used by the American Volunteer Group. Also why do you think the Brits
accept the Brewster Buffalo over the P-40?

> Forget the numbers you've dragged up from (presumably) official
>or manufacturers test data (if such data were "real", the P-39 would
>have been the fastest fighter of its day!), in a REAL shooting war the
>P-40B was outclassed.

Why should I forget the numbers?
I ask you the same question. Where in hell did you drag up the numbers
which apparently you must have based your opinion upon?

Were you ever in combat. I ask this only because it makes a great deal
of difference as to how you look at performance figures.

>In a REAL shooting War.

I assure that my data is very much REAL, and we were damn well in a
REAL WAR. How in the hell do you think the Flying Tigers were able to
destroy 297 Japanese aircraft, CONFIRMED NOT CLAIMED, (Although my
friend Dan Ford likes to refer to them as claimed.) and how did we
loose 4 pilot that were killed in aerial combat, 3 became POWs, 1 MIA
and 9 lost attacking ground targets, and 2 were killed because of
Japanese bombing?????????????

My P-40 numbers were dragged up from my Diary, Which at one time I was
a military test pilot before going to China. Also I have several
hundred hours in flying the P-40B and P-40E, some of which was in
combat.

Tex hill, a high ranking ace with the Flying Tigers and also Johnny
Alison, who was an ace with the 14th AF flew a captured Zero. Tex upon
landing said they would never swap a P-40 for a Zero. Concerning the
Zero, my figures are also based upon an interview I had with Saburo
Sakai, Japanese leading living ace.

>Both the Zero and the Oscar were brilliant and innovative
>designs, which gave the Japanese absolute air superiority for the first
>year or so of the Pacific war.

Innovative:
This is down right laughable, I have flown a CW-21, an aircraft built
by Curtiss Wright in 1938 that's empty weight was 3150 lbs which was 10
mph faster than the Zero, could out climb the Zero by more than 2500
f/p/m, and 100 mph faster in a dive faster and had a higher role rate
as well. Why didn't the military buy it. Just dumb I guess.
http://www.sml.lr.tudelft.nl/~home/rob/models/images/cw21-04.jpg


They had faults and failings, and zero (sorry about the pun!)
development potential (unlike the Bf109 and Spitfire), but IN THEIR DAY
they were great. Zero the best fighter of WW2? One of, but not THE.

Roger, NOT EVEN CLOSE. Again I ask the question. What in the hell do
you base your opionion upon???????????? How about reviewing my
provable figures and respond to
them.

Erik Shilling
--
Erik Shilling Author; Destiny: A Flying Tiger's
Flight Leader Rendezvous With Fate.
3rd Squadron AVG
Flying Tigers



You got to Follow the link for more info /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

http://yarchive.net/mil/p40.html




VICTOR MAY HAVE BEEN A WEIRDO,BUT HE WAS A DAMN GOOD FIGHTERPILOT.
<ceter>http://www.boners.com/content/788904.1.jpg </center>


Message Edited on 10/03/03 08:01PM by fjuff79

Message Edited on 10/03/03 11:07PM by fjuff79

Message Edited on 10/14/0305:19PM by fjuff79

XyZspineZyX
10-03-2003, 08:58 PM
READ!
he explains it all.
P-40/Zeros and others
this is what everybody here on the Forum should know.
AND IM NOT TALKING ABOUT THE P-40

FOLLOW THIS LINK FOR THE WHOLE TEXT:
http://yarchive.net/mil/p40.html



>If the P-40B was so brilliant, how come the Zeros and Oscars shot them
>out of the sky in the Pacific and SE Asia war zones in 1941/2?

Answer:
I will answer this question with an analogy. If I give you a high
powered rifle and tell you it is a club, and you foolishly use it as a
club, and I give another person a 45 cal. pistol, and he knows how to
use it. Who do you think will be the victor.

The same applies to fighters.

If you don't use your equipment properly, you are going to lose the
fight. The Americans unfortunately had been taught the antiquated
dogfighting technic that had been used in WW I, and wasn't successful
against the Zero.

The answer to your question. In the early stages of the war the allied
pilots were not using their equipment correctly. (For your
information, the Allies never built an airplane that could turn inside
the Zero below 200 mph.) So how do you think we eventually outfought
them at every engagement. CHANGE OF TACTICS

In 1943, when the P-38 was first used in the Pacific, the Zero pilots
were shooting them down in large numbers. (See Subro Sakai's book
Zero.)

Isn't this amazing when you consider that the P-38's top speed was 100
mph faster than the Zero, and pilots were still trying to dogfight the
Zero.

Chennault had written a manual on fighter tactics, which discouraged
dogfighting as outdated. The military brass disagreed with Chennault,
and as a result Chennault was given an early retirement from the Army
Air Corps. Unfortunately the American military took Chennault for a
Fool. The same as the court martial board had taken Billy Mitchell as
a fool, when he claimed that bombers could sink any battle ship afloat.
Even though he proved it by sinking a German WW I battleship he was
court martialed.

>Why did the RAF ship all of theirs out to less critical war zones or to the
>USSR?

Answer:
The Brits are an amazing people and this is not intended as a put down.
I don't pretend to be able to answer what was in the mind of the
British Air Arm at the time. However, this question is best answered
by another question, and a comment.

My guess is that whom ever high ranking RAF that made such a decision,
were not very good judges of aircraft. My guess was that President
Roosvelt pressured the Brits into releasing 100 P-40s which were to be
used by the American Volunteer Group. Also why do you think the Brits
accept the Brewster Buffalo over the P-40?

> Forget the numbers you've dragged up from (presumably) official
>or manufacturers test data (if such data were "real", the P-39 would
>have been the fastest fighter of its day!), in a REAL shooting war the
>P-40B was outclassed.

Why should I forget the numbers?
I ask you the same question. Where in hell did you drag up the numbers
which apparently you must have based your opinion upon?

Were you ever in combat. I ask this only because it makes a great deal
of difference as to how you look at performance figures.

>In a REAL shooting War.

I assure that my data is very much REAL, and we were damn well in a
REAL WAR. How in the hell do you think the Flying Tigers were able to
destroy 297 Japanese aircraft, CONFIRMED NOT CLAIMED, (Although my
friend Dan Ford likes to refer to them as claimed.) and how did we
loose 4 pilot that were killed in aerial combat, 3 became POWs, 1 MIA
and 9 lost attacking ground targets, and 2 were killed because of
Japanese bombing?????????????

My P-40 numbers were dragged up from my Diary, Which at one time I was
a military test pilot before going to China. Also I have several
hundred hours in flying the P-40B and P-40E, some of which was in
combat.

Tex hill, a high ranking ace with the Flying Tigers and also Johnny
Alison, who was an ace with the 14th AF flew a captured Zero. Tex upon
landing said they would never swap a P-40 for a Zero. Concerning the
Zero, my figures are also based upon an interview I had with Saburo
Sakai, Japanese leading living ace.

>Both the Zero and the Oscar were brilliant and innovative
>designs, which gave the Japanese absolute air superiority for the first
>year or so of the Pacific war.

Innovative:
This is down right laughable, I have flown a CW-21, an aircraft built
by Curtiss Wright in 1938 that's empty weight was 3150 lbs which was 10
mph faster than the Zero, could out climb the Zero by more than 2500
f/p/m, and 100 mph faster in a dive faster and had a higher role rate
as well. Why didn't the military buy it. Just dumb I guess.
http://www.sml.lr.tudelft.nl/~home/rob/models/images/cw21-04.jpg


They had faults and failings, and zero (sorry about the pun!)
development potential (unlike the Bf109 and Spitfire), but IN THEIR DAY
they were great. Zero the best fighter of WW2? One of, but not THE.

Roger, NOT EVEN CLOSE. Again I ask the question. What in the hell do
you base your opionion upon???????????? How about reviewing my
provable figures and respond to
them.

Erik Shilling
--
Erik Shilling Author; Destiny: A Flying Tiger's
Flight Leader Rendezvous With Fate.
3rd Squadron AVG
Flying Tigers



You got to Follow the link for more info /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

http://yarchive.net/mil/p40.html




VICTOR MAY HAVE BEEN A WEIRDO,BUT HE WAS A DAMN GOOD FIGHTERPILOT.
<ceter>http://www.boners.com/content/788904.1.jpg </center>


Message Edited on 10/03/03 08:01PM by fjuff79

Message Edited on 10/03/03 11:07PM by fjuff79

Message Edited on 10/14/0305:19PM by fjuff79

XyZspineZyX
10-03-2003, 09:46 PM
Thanks fjuff. I made a lot of the same points in post about Zero's being added about a month ago. Thanks for the link as well. can't wait to see how Zeke's will fit in online arenas when patch comes( after they totally neuter La7's, due to excessive whining)



http://planeta.terra.com.br/educacao/luftwaffe3945/Imagens/la7_2.jpg


NOOB AND PROUD OF IT!

XyZspineZyX
10-03-2003, 10:20 PM
fjuff79 wrote:
- CHANGE OF TACTICS

Yup... which comes with EXPERANCE. This lack of experance on the American side early in the war can explain alot of things. Like why the P40 vs 109 and P39 vs 109 went so badly.. It wasnt like the war in north africa was at 30kft.. History blames it on the P39 and P40 not being as good as the 109s... Yet in the hands of the russians the P39 did pretty well early on. Which basicaly comes back to what chuck said.. it is the man not the machine.. And early in the war the Japanse and Germans had alot of pilots with lots of stick time in combat.. ie vetrans. Where as we did not.



<div style="background:#222222;color:#e0e0e0;font-size:24px;font-weight:bold;font-face:courier;"> TAGERT
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
If WAR was not the ANSWER.. Than what the H was your QUESTION?
</div>
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=forum
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=discussion

XyZspineZyX
10-03-2003, 10:34 PM
SO TRUE SO TRUE
I have also tried to explain this without any succes, but he does it pretty good.

VICTOR MAY HAVE BEEN A WEIRDO,BUT HE WAS A DAMN GOOD FIGHTERPILOT.
<ceter>http://www.boners.com/content/788904.1.jpg </center>

XyZspineZyX
10-04-2003, 12:09 AM
bump

VICTOR MAY HAVE BEEN A WEIRDO,BUT HE WAS A DAMN GOOD FIGHTERPILOT.
<ceter>http://www.boners.com/content/788904.1.jpg </center>

Buzz_25th
10-04-2003, 12:41 AM
I don't remember anybody saying the P-40 was a great plane.

If you want to talk about the Jap planes. Talk about the Hellcat. It made toothpicks out of the Zero. One huge fight lost 6 hellcats to 400 Zeros.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
25th_Buzz
<center>
http://www.vfa25.com/sigs/buzz.jpg

XyZspineZyX
10-04-2003, 01:07 AM
However, let's not also forget that the two highest scoring American Aces flew P38s. Richard Bong scored all of his kills in the P38./i/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

That's gonna be a fun plane when it gets here.

_______________________________________
çk?¯kT 2003**

XyZspineZyX
10-04-2003, 01:56 AM
fjuff79;

Thanks for the link. It explains why one of my squadmates is such a P-40 fan.

I'll take a Warhawk for a spin armed with this information and see how I do.

(btw, that sig of yours........well......I don't know what to say)

<center>Beebop-ProudBirds-VFW<center>http://www.uploadit.org/files/230903-Beebop%20Sig.jpg

XyZspineZyX
10-04-2003, 02:06 AM
japs didnt rotate pilots, so at end of war they didnt have many left, even worse than germany
and the zero wasnt developed much, had no armour also
was a mega fighter early war tho /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

XyZspineZyX
10-04-2003, 02:09 AM
The P-40's severely underrated - IMO it's the absolute best fighter for '41 in the game, and the 40M2 stands a pretty even chance against the 190A4 and 109G2 even as they're currently [over]modelled.

There are some interesting comments in the Yarchive site from Eric and others about P-40 vs 109 matchups in the Med theatre as well. At least according to the site, as long as the fight's down low then the early 109's don't stand much of a chance.

Adding rockets to the 105 mod P40 is very, very fun as well :>



http://home.iprimus.com.au/djgwen/fb/worker_parasite.jpg

Need help with NewView? Read this thread. (http://forums.ubi.com/messages/message_view-topic.asp?name=us_il2sturmovik_gd&id=yzbcj)

XyZspineZyX
10-04-2003, 02:35 AM
Even with it's incorrect (too slow) roll rate in FB, the P40 is IMHO the best Allied aircraft in '41 and into '42. (speaking only of FB here). If you can get enough altitude before engaging the enemy, even if they are above you, you can dictate the fight to 109E and F models. It has the speed, agility, and GUNS, to be highly effective in early year DF servers. And you will look good whilst doing it!!!

/i/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif



I really don't worry much about the Zero. Remember, Oleg said along time ago that it did'nt turn any better than a LaGG3......

The aircraft to fear, if properly modeled, will be the Ki84. Be sure!

<center><FONT color="red">[b]BlitzPig_EL</FONT>[B]<CENTER> http://old.jccc.net/~droberts/p40/images/p40home.gif
</img>.
"All men dream, but not equally. Those who dream by night in the dusty recesses of their minds, wake in the day that it was vanity:
but the dreamers of the day are dangerous men, for they may act on their dreams with open eyes, to make them possible. "
--T.E. Lawrence

XyZspineZyX
10-04-2003, 02:46 AM
"Oleg said along time ago that it did'nt turn any better than a LaGG3......"

Heh...not much in FB does.


Lixma,

Blitzpig.

XyZspineZyX
10-04-2003, 02:49 AM
~S! Fjuffe79, good post.

I highly recommend Erik Shilling's book, its a great read, but unfortunately hard to find.

Regards



BPO5_Jinx
C.O. Replacement Air Group
Birds of Prey. 16th GvIAP
http://www.birdsofprey16thgviap.com
http://www.soaridaho.com/Schreder/RS-15/N50GL.html

XyZspineZyX
10-04-2003, 06:43 AM
Just on a side note, I would argue that the primary reason the Zero had so little development potential, was simply a lack of suitable engines.

The Japanese never really perfected the high power engine, whereas the Germans managed to increas the DB line from around 600hp to over 2000hp, with relatively low increase in size and mass. Any plane with that much engine in front of it is going to be fast. I suspect the Zero wouldn't have done to badly, late war, if they had been able to eke a couple thousand horsepower out of that engine too.

The late war models did add armour, and extra firepower, but they became to underpowered to fight effectively.

Harry Voyager

http://groups.msn.com/_Secure/0YQDLAswcqmIpvWP9dLzZVayPXOmo6IJ16aURujNfs4dDETH84 Q6eIkCbWQemjqF6O8ZfvzlsvUUauJyy9GYnKM6!o3fu!kBnWVh BgMt3q2T3BUQ8yjBBqECLxFaqXVV5U2kWiSIlq1s6VoaVvRqBy Q/Avatar%202%20500x500%20[final).jpg?dc=4675409848259594077

XyZspineZyX
10-04-2003, 07:00 AM
...but the Zero, being so light an airframe, might not have been able to accomodate an engine with that much horsepower.

They wisely decided to pursue other types, notably the Ki-84. But by then it was far too late.

XyZspineZyX
10-04-2003, 07:20 AM
Erik Shilling wrote:
- I will answer this question with an analogy. If I
- give you a high
- powered rifle and tell you it is a club, and you
- foolishly use it as a
- club, and I give another person a 45 cal. pistol,
- and he knows how to
- use it. Who do you think will be the victor.
-
- The same applies to fighters.

Without getting too far from the point - I should've said this in my original post rather than blather about the P-40.

People pay far too much attention to the evolution of fighter designs and not enough attention to the evolution of fighter tactics. Almost everyone on this board included. Air combat is not 'rock paper scissors' based solely on what kind of fighter someone is flying against another.

I'd so never touch another game if the next step for Maddox games' next sim isn't vertex/pixel shaded everything for graphics, but rather an AI system that allows american football style play-calling of tactics for the AI. Or both. Yes, both sounds nice :>



http://home.iprimus.com.au/djgwen/fb/worker_parasite.jpg

Need help with NewView? Read this thread. (http://forums.ubi.com/messages/message_view-topic.asp?name=us_il2sturmovik_gd&id=yzbcj)

XyZspineZyX
10-04-2003, 12:47 PM
Buzz_25th wrote:
- I don't remember anybody saying the P-40 was a great
- plane.
-
- If you want to talk about the Jap planes. Talk
- about the Hellcat. It made toothpicks out of the
- Zero. One huge fight lost 6 hellcats to 400 Zeros.
-
you have obviosly not understand or read the whole text.



Message Edited on 10/04/0311:57AM by fjuff79

XyZspineZyX
10-04-2003, 12:49 PM
SlickStick wrote:
- However, let's not also forget that the two highest
- scoring American Aces flew P38s. Richard Bong
- scored all of his kills in the P38./i/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif
-
- That's gonna be a fun plane when it gets here.
-
you have obviosly not understand or read the whole text.



Message Edited on 10/04/0311:57AM by fjuff79

XyZspineZyX
10-04-2003, 12:51 PM
p1ngu666 wrote:
- japs didnt rotate pilots, so at end of war they
- didnt have many left, even worse than germany
- and the zero wasnt developed much, had no armour
- also
- was a mega fighter early war tho /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif
-
you have obviosly not understand or read the whole text.



Message Edited on 10/04/0311:57AM by fjuff79

XyZspineZyX
10-04-2003, 12:55 PM
clint-ruin wrote:
- Erik Shilling wrote:
-- I will answer this question with an analogy. If I
-- give you a high
-- powered rifle and tell you it is a club, and you
-- foolishly use it as a
-- club, and I give another person a 45 cal. pistol,
-- and he knows how to
-- use it. Who do you think will be the victor.
--
-- The same applies to fighters.
-
- Without getting too far from the point - I should've
- said this in my original post rather than blather
- about the P-40.
-
- People pay far too much attention to the evolution
- of fighter designs and not enough attention to the
- evolution of fighter tactics. Almost everyone on
- this board included. Air combat is not 'rock paper
- scissors' based solely on what kind of fighter
- someone is flying against another.
-


BULLS EYE! you got it /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif


VICTOR MAY HAVE BEEN A WEIRDO,BUT HE WAS A DAMN GOOD FIGHTERPILOT.
<ceter>http://www.boners.com/content/788904.1.jpg </center>

XyZspineZyX
10-06-2003, 04:43 PM
bump

VICTOR MAY HAVE BEEN A WEIRDO,BUT HE WAS A DAMN GOOD FIGHTERPILOT.
<ceter>http://www.boners.com/content/788904.1.jpg </center>

XyZspineZyX
10-06-2003, 04:59 PM
I never thought much good of the Zero, and to me it's nowhere near being the best plane of the war. Also I am a huge fav of the P40 which is right up there on my fav airplanes list (esp the B/C). But I have to say here that:

- The AVG P40Bs had hand assembled engines made with parts that didn't suit the quality control tests for serial production. The fact that the engines were hand built made them more powerful than regular ones somehow. About 100hp or so I have read.

- The AVG never faught the A6M Zero. IIRC, they faught A5M Claude and Ki43 Oscars + bombers.

Don't take me wrong, I have no doubt that the P40 could beat a zero if flown properly.

Nic

XyZspineZyX
10-06-2003, 10:25 PM
Don´t forget to read the text on the link,

VICTOR MAY HAVE BEEN A WEIRDO,BUT HE WAS A DAMN GOOD FIGHTERPILOT.
<ceter>http://www.boners.com/content/788904.1.jpg </center>

XyZspineZyX
10-06-2003, 11:13 PM
intersting topic


I had the chance to speak to a WWII fighter pilot earlier this year. He flew many planes in combat, mostly in the MTO. He spoke over the phone the most about the P-40 against the 109 in Italy. He spoke of how the P-40 could beat the 109 close in tight turning battle but could easily outrun the P-40 and the 109 had some powerful guns. He never spoke about one being better then the other, just good planes being used differnt ways.

<center>http://www.blitzpigs.com/john/BP-johann-9-4-03.gif <center>

XyZspineZyX
10-06-2003, 11:15 PM
Oh I wish I could write /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

I meant that he said he remembered the P-40 out turning the 109 but the 109 being much faster with powerful guns,

you get the idea


both good planes used different ways

<center>http://www.blitzpigs.com/john/BP-johann-9-4-03.gif <center>

XyZspineZyX
10-14-2003, 06:17 PM
johann63 wrote:
- I meant that he said he remembered the P-40 out
- turning the 109 but the 109 being much faster with
- powerful guns,
-
- you get the idea
-
-
- both good planes used different ways

yes exsactly,


VICTOR MAY HAVE BEEN A WEIRDO,BUT HE WAS A DAMN GOOD FIGHTERPILOT.
<ceter>http://www.boners.com/content/788904.1.jpg </center>

XyZspineZyX
10-14-2003, 08:31 PM
Hm, P-40, just look at this guy's list /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif


http://www.luftwaffe.cz/schroer.html

XyZspineZyX
10-15-2003, 11:25 AM
Jaws2002 wrote:
- Hm, P-40, just look at this guy's list <img

Obviusly you have not read or understand the text,
is it really that hard?

VICTOR MAY HAVE BEEN A WEIRDO,BUT HE WAS A DAMN GOOD FIGHTERPILOT.
<ceter>http://www.boners.com/content/788904.1.jpg </center>

XyZspineZyX
10-15-2003, 12:47 PM
dont forget the p40b and c mostly faced ki27s and early japense bombers.

http://www.freewebs.com/leadspitter/lead.txt
Good dogfighters bring ammo home, Great ones don't. (c) Leadspitter

XyZspineZyX
10-15-2003, 01:35 PM
I stated this about a year ago , Some of the best pilots used what we considered old aircraft.

You look at some of the Russian and German top pilots , they did not fly the latest and greatest .
They learned how to fly the plane that fit them the best and when in combat these pilots scored big time .

I just read a book about the Battle of Britain , and it was said how the Spitfires got the credit , but the Hurries are the ones with the most shoot downs and the pilot who wrote this stated that the Hurrie is the plane that won the Battle of Britain .

But it did not make history because it was not the sleek and sexy Spit.

XyZspineZyX
10-15-2003, 01:39 PM
Cess-Harpoon wrote:
- I stated this about a year ago , Some of the best
- pilots used what we considered old aircraft.
-
- You look at some of the Russian and German top
- pilots , they did not fly the latest and greatest .
-
- They learned how to fly the plane that fit them the
- best and when in combat these pilots scored big time

BULLS EYE!

VICTOR MAY HAVE BEEN A WEIRDO,BUT HE WAS A DAMN GOOD FIGHTERPILOT.
<ceter>http://www.boners.com/content/788904.1.jpg </center>

XyZspineZyX
10-15-2003, 01:42 PM
Cess-Harpoon wrote:
- I stated this about a year ago , Some of the best
- pilots used what we considered old aircraft.
-
- You look at some of the Russian and German top
- pilots , they did not fly the latest and greatest .
-
- They learned how to fly the plane that fit them the
- best and when in combat these pilots scored big time

BULLS EYE!
-
-



VICTOR MAY HAVE BEEN A WEIRDO,BUT HE WAS A DAMN GOOD FIGHTERPILOT.
<ceter>http://www.boners.com/content/788904.1.jpg </center>