Showing a picture of John Boyd is very funny in this context Thorsim. Because what Boyd emphasized, among other things, was the importance of low lift loading and and high thrust-weight in a fighter, concepts you clearly do not comprehend.
By your twisted logic, the F-104 ought to be far better at maneuver combat than the F-15, because it is almost exactly half the weight.
F-104G
Empty weight: 14,000 lb (6,350 kg)
Loaded weight: 20,640 lb (9,365 kg)
F-15C
Empty weight: 28,000 lb (12,700 kg)
Loaded weight: 44,500 lb (20,200 kg)
So, since the Eagle is literally double the weight of the Starfighter, the latter should fly circles around it in maneuver combat, correct?
The only actual combat advantage of small size *in and of itself* is that a smaller aircraft is harder to pick up visually. If you had argued that it may be more practical and cost effective to build a 20,000 lbs airplane with an engine producing 20,000 lbs of thrust than a 40,000 airplane with two engines producing 40,000 lbs of thrust, that would have been one thing. But no, you specifically stated that absolute size and weight have an effect on maneuver performance independent of the ratios of weight and drag to lift and thrust, and that is absolute hogwash.
