Originally posted by Gixer
Widewing,
Just re-read my post, sorry don't take it as criticism. I appreciate and respect the time and information you give this community. I just don't dwell heavily on technical specifications.
Same deal goes with racing bikes, good rider can beat a candy arse on anything..
...-Gixer
I don't take it as criticism at all. You fly the Yak-9U as your primary machine. You know it as well as anyone can and have great confidence in it. That's all good. Moreover, you are correct that the vast majority of La-7s and Spitfires are flown by pilots who are generally helpless in a 1v1 fight.
What I do is test every aspect of each fighter. I make determinations based upon that testing. Then, I set out to verify this by flying the aircraft against good pilots in dissimilar aircraft.
This is how I arrived at the conclusion that the La-7 is superior to the Yak. Much smaller turn radius, better ailerons, better acceleration and speed, superior climb rate and zoom. As dogfighters, the Spit8 and Spit16 are superior to the La-7. They're just not as fast on the deck.
Nonetheless, if flown by a "candy arse", they are of little threat to a good pilot in his favorite fighter.
Unlike the La-7 and Spitfires, the Yak is an expert's fighter. It takes experience and some skill to use the Yak to its full potential while avoiding its weaknesses. That is why we don't see many Yaks, and those we do see are usually very well flown.
There are fighters that require an exceptional pilot to succeed in the MA environment. The P-47 is one. It's realm is the thin air above 25,000 feet, where it reigns without genuine peer. Down low, it's performance is merely average. Despite this, a skilled pilot can wreak mayhem by using the Jug's strengths and avoiding situations that magnify its weakness. But if he runs into an equal pilot in a better plane, he's going to have his hands full.
My point is that I rate aircraft independent of the pilot flying it. I have to do this or what we have is totally subjective. My intention is never to pee in someone's breakfast bowl, but to define performance. It's virtually clinical in nature.
When we put people at the controls, all bets are off. Especially when the pilot is a gamer, not a flight sim player. These guys want to win the map, and actually developing some ACM skills never enters their thinking. Last evening I dispatched a small raid of 110s and 190s alone, flying an IL-2. It was ridiculous. These guys were truly helpless; mere target practice. Any fighter is superior to the IL-2 air to air. Yet, they had no idea what to do.
So, Gixer and those others who may read this, it's not a reflection on you as pilots. I have the greatest respect for those who excel as pilots, and for those with aspirations to excel. It's simply an analysis of the various aircraft and their relative merits.
My regards,
Widewing