Talk:Heavy fighter
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
Heavy fighter is part of WikiProject Aircraft, an attempt to better organize articles related to aircraft. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page or visit the project page where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. |
| ??? | This article has not yet received a rating on the quality scale. Please rate the article and then leave a short summary here to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article. |
| ??? | This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale. |
|
|
|
OK, I know it's nit-picking, but people do tend to underestimate the Hurricane. In 1940, it was every bit as practical a fighter as a bf109 or Spitfire - and, according to RAF research unit tests later in the war using captured aircraft, more manouverable than either. (I must try to dig out my source for that.) The lack of success in France, I suggest, is bettter attributed to lack of training, outdated doctrine, and inexperience than aircraft type. Bit hard to get all that into this article without dragging it off-topic though. Tannin
Actually the single most important factor in a guns fight is outright speed at the fight's altitude. This was known as far back as WWI, but with all that bracing it was difficult to do anything about it. By WWII the Germans had already concluded that manuverability was of defensive use only, and built their designs for speed first, climb second, manuverability third.
So even if the Hurri was more manuverable, that's of little consequence. The 109 was much faster, and won those fights. Likewise the faster US planes ate the Zero's lunch, and the practically unmanuverable Me 262 had a 5 to 1 kill ratio.
So, sorry, but I have to disagree, the Hurri was past its prime.
Maury 15:21, 14 Feb 2004 (UTC)
