[RegRag1977]

Originally Posted by FC99

Shaw's book is not intended for kindergarten kids, some comprehension ability and familiarity with BFM,ACM and physics in general are prerequisites for understanding the book. Reading it from the beginning helps too, especially if you read it all, not just a parts you like and conveniently forget everything that doesn't suit your agenda.

Yes, absolutely, it's all about physics. Interesting that you're speaking about Kindergarten and yet trying an ad hominem attack on me to make people think that i am wanting to change something in the game when i'm only taking part in a interesting discussion. I guess you don't find this childish. Anyway...

I was looking for more arguments, and no personal attacks...

Originally Posted by FC99

Spits were dived to higher Machs than P47 although this is not relevant for this story.

We are talking WW2 environement and standard performance, right? So please give me any information that shows that P47C is inferior in top diving speed and has lower dive acceleration compared to Spitfire IX. Strangely Shaw seems on the contrary to believe that the P47 had: "faster top speed and greater dive acceleration"...

Are you trying to make your point against mine by comparing a standard WW2 design with a prototype? Would that be scientific or prove comprehension ability and familiarity with BFM,ACM and physics in general? Or agenda and other Kindergarten stuff?

You're right it is not relevant.

Originally Posted by FC99

And "can't come close to P47" means what exactly, how many meters is that? I'm sure that all of the F1 drivers will sya that HRT is cr@p in comparison to Ferrari but on a full lap difference is whooping couple hundred meters.

It's just an experienced fighter pilot that tells it, not me. I guess it is just a statement like "no modern allied aircraft engaged in PTO could turn inside a A6M type"...It's a general statement that reflects some pilot experience, i guess.
Frankly, i don't understand your strange comparison with cars, i did not know cars and WW2 aircraft were so close in design that we could compare them, i leave you with that, and instead i ask you to think about what it does mean when successful fighter pilots tell you something like that: "no modern allied aircraft engaged in PTO could turn inside an A6M type", maybe it will help you to understand Johnson statement.

Originally Posted by FC99

It is not guaranteed way of building the E over an opponent, it gives you E advantage only if your opponent is "cooperative" and decide to play your game. Spit can easily dive at shallower angle and keep altitude while holding the P-47 in check. As they started at ~1500m there is not much room for diving anyway.

If you want to build E in WWII environment than climb, climb, climb.

My point of view is that it is Johnson that was cooperative in the mock fight by letting it start with a Spitfire right on his six, but again that's just me. Denying the enemy to get to your six for free is another basic rule of air combat if memory serves me? Johnson here plays the Spitfire pilot's game by offering the Spitfire pilot the most desirable position to start a dogfight with , and this maybe tells things about how confident Johnson was about his high speed combat knowledge and about the potential of his aircraft...

Originally Posted by FC99

This is a story from the guy who scored some kills, survived and wrote this book with M. Caidin IIRC. Book was meant to be sold and entertain not to tell dry facts. He also says that P-47 ca out-roll anything and this nowhere near the truth. It is just about beating famous plane, Spitfire, nothing more nothing less. If you want real controversy than examine the Johnson's story about being hammered by an FW.

Strange that an actual fighter pilot with a lot of experience (4000 hours) like Shaw and unlike you, found his account fair enough to use it in his scientific book, praising the man. But now if you yourself want to consider Johnson as a liar and poor poser pilot, that is your choice. As for the Fw190 encounter: i don't see the logical link between being defeated and nearly shot down by a Fw190 pilot and the ability of a fighter pilot to describe a dogfight with precision. Lots of experienced pilots were shot down, what's the problem with that?
haha It seems like that you cannot bear the idea of a famous Spitfire being shot down, and this is childish to me. It appears YOU have an agenda (with the Spitfire), not me.

Originally Posted by FC99

This is not poor example, this is excellent example how to improve your chances when you are at disadvantage and eventually beat your opponent.

Yes i agree with you on this, but remember that the Spitfire pilot starts the engagement in an ideal position too. The mock fight doesn't start in a neutral position, and this is the most interesting fact in the whole account.

Originally Posted by FC99

This:

P-47 rolls and turns(Johnson never said that he didn't turn, just that he didn't turn hard and rolls without turns makes no sense because in that case plane would just fly straight rolling around longitudinal axis. With doing that P-47 would just lose E.) So mechanic of the fight is this:
P-47 rolls and turn gently
Spit follow the roll and turns inside
P-47 rolls to the other side and turns
Spit can't follow the roll so he is still turning left when P-47 is already turning right. When Spit has rolled and turning right Johnson repeats everything again but to the other side. With every roll and turn Johnson is putting Spit outside of his turn and that force Spit to turn harder every time to get inside of P-47 turn. This creates E difference and separation which enables Johnson to perform vertical move and beat the Spit.


Basic premises of E fight is denying the vertical moves to your opponent, now ask yourself, why Spit didn't pull into vertical and meet P-47 head-on, that would be a draw.

Why he/her didn't do it, to slow to pull up or Spit pilot didn't even saw that Johnson pulled up after one of the reversal because it is very likely that after every reversal P-47 went under Spit nose thus making the visual contact impossible?

Please read points 7 and 8 in BlackBerry's last post

remark on a small detail: Strange what you say about rolling around longitudinal axis and losing E: I always thought aileron rolling was considered E neutral....Maybe for some reasons it is not so for P47?

Originally Posted by FC99

If Johnson was flying straight Spitfire turning ability is irrelevant, he is faster and has better dive, why he had to roll in the first place?

That is maybe because he generously gave his six at the beginning of the engagement? What do you think?

Originally Posted by FC99

Don't know what is funny here, Spit pilot obviously didn't know how to counter Johnson's moves and that shows his/her lack of skill.



What is the problem here, P47 will be better in zoom part and Spit will catch it easily in sustained climb.

Yet Johnson insists on the fact that the Spitfire cannot stay with the P47c in a zoom, and that he could use this to advantage not only versus a Spitfire but also against German opponenents.