Actually it is a huge drawback. You really want to keep as much energy as possible. It gives you the ability to maneuver.
Maneuverability, including bleeding off speed, is a good for combat aircraft, but air brakes are common nowadays. Without air brakes, there are means to quickly slow down with maneuvers such as a wingover or barrel roll.
Usually true, but not always. The Brits with their AV-8s taught the Argentinian A-4s a few lessons during the Falklands war.
Where did you get your history? The P-51 was a quick replacement to the Brits for the POS fighter the Brewster Buffalo. The Brits were pissed because of lackluster performance and it was matched with the British Merlin engine producing the P-51B and C versions. It was further refined with a Packard version of the Merlin for the P-51D. The ME-262 was a good fighter, but underdeveloped and misused because of Hitler was an idiot. He used it as a bomber first, not a fighter.
If you are claiming the P51 is a P40 with a Merlin, that isn't accurate. They are similar in appearance, but different air frames. A Merlin was tried in the P40 and the improvement in performance was marginal. Everyone agrees the Buffalo was far too outdated.
No, but the fact you tried to make it seem I do says a lot about you, sir. Best of luck with your life.
Hey, I thought that is what you meant. What did you mean by your message of: "The P-51 was a quick replacement to the Brits for the POS fighter the Brewster Buffalo. The Brits were pissed because of lackluster performance and it was matched with the British Merlin engine producing the P-51B and C versions. It was further refined with a Packard version of the Merlin for the P-51D." What is the "it?" Are you claiming the P51 is a Brewster Buffalo with a Merlin motor? What is the "it" you are referring to? We were talking about the P40. (Don't be so sensitive. I was not trying to be misleading about what you posted. I thought the "it" mean the P40. I even prefaced my statement with "if that is what you mean..." What do you mean by "it?")
OK, that makes sense. I did preface my brief message with "If you are claiming..." "It" could have meant the Buffalo, the P40 or the P51. Were the Brits pissed because of the lackluster Buffalo or the lackluster P51? I can't know what's in his brain. But yeah, looking at it carefully, it most likely did mean the first P51. How he saw my message as a personal attack is just way, way too sensitive as that was not my thoughts at all. P40s and P51s have similiar appearance and, in some regards, the P51 evolved from the P40 such as water cooled (or gycol cooled) engines were relatively new and controversial, though a different air frame. Its not like I called him any names. Just noted the P51 had a different air frame than the P40 - notable but not readily apparent is very different wing shapes to allow higher speed, but at a slight lose of agility.
Lackluster performance of the P-51. The A model with the Allison engine was just not impressive, although Allison-engined P-51’s performed well in the form of the A-36 Apache.
You're talking about a Harrier vs A4 down on the deck. That is a distinct scenario and a lot depends upon the how the A4 is loaded and who has the height advantage.
...and superiority of training. More on that particular war: https://tacairnet.com/2017/02/19/ha...d-in-a-dogfight-by-literally-stopping-midair/
At first glance, you might think the Henschel Hs 129 was the perfect ground-attack airplane. Twin engines. A heavily-armored cockpit that protected the pilot from small-arms fire. The aircraft even eventually had the heaviest and most powerful forward-firing cannon ever fitted to a production military aircraft during World War II. The Hs 129 was supposed to be the Luftwaffe’s ultimate aerial tank-killer, dealing death from above to Soviet T-34s on the Russian front. In other words, it would be easy to see it as a World War II-forerunner of today’s formidable A-10 Warthog. There was just one problem: By all accounts, the Hs 129 was a questionable performer. In fact, the original Hs 129 A-1 series was so badthat the Luftwaffe refused to accept any of the A-1s for service. The Hs 129 wasn’t a Warthog. It was a turkey....continue -> https://warisboring.com/the-hs-129-was-supposed-to-the-a-10-of-world-war-ii/
Apparently that gun was the largest in use until the A10. http://www.thefirearmblog.com/blog/2017/08/17/nazis-flying-artillery-henschel-hs129/
It had serious engine problems when it was first fielded. Kind of par for the course for every German aircraft developed after 1939.
After the war it was learned many of Germany's aircraft motors were made by French slave labor. While the parts would spec out perfectly, they would over temper various parts that would run fine, but develop micro cracks. All check flights and testing fine. But when pushed to the max in combat or when enough hours had been flown, a component would give out, taking out or reducing the power of the engine. It only takes one piston failure, oil pump fail or connecting rod bear to spin to rapidly then take out the motor in seconds to minutes. Even just one fuel injector failure would seriously down power the aircraft. I read they usually focused on pistons to fail. Anyone whose ever thrown a rod in a motor knows what massive damage this does instantly and the rod will beat the motor to death in seconds. Overall, as the Germans had to rely on slave labor for the factories, many German war machines - which tend to be quite complex - would fail due to just one component failing. Tiger tanks, over engineered to begin with, proved to be exceptionally unreliable.
The Luftwaffe's Hs-129 was designed as an attack aircraft, battlefield air interdiction (BAI), close air support (CAS). The RAAF Bristol 156-Beaufighter was designed to be a jack of all trades, bomber, fighter, night fighter (radar equipped), battlefield air interdiction, torpedo bomber. On this side of the "Pond" (America) the Beaufighter would be a "forgotten aircraft." My understanding there are no flyable 156-Beaughfighters today and only seven in on display in museums. One being in the USA at the National Museum of The United States Air Force, Dayton www.nationalmuseum.af.mil . http://www.aviastar.org/air/england/bristol_beaufighter.php https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bristol_Beaufighter
Actually, that comparison I made is wrong or not -depending on model and how armed as it varied thru the evolution of both. From this source, anyway, the P40 could carry twice the bomb load. Think that is accurate? http://aviatia.net/p-40-vs-p-51/
