This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.
If you missed it, catch up. A completely new angle (for me at least) of how tenuous a victory this was for the British, particularly considering the superior fire power and engine of the Me109. Better intelligence and tactical decisions may have completely changed the course of the war. Well worth watching.
In reply to Removed Userysingo: Will do. I enjoyed Ewan and Colin McGregor's Battle of Britain programme the other night, it's still on iplayer.
In reply to Removed Userysingo:
One advantage of the Me 109's Daimler-Benz engine was that it was fuel injected, enabling the aircraft to fly inverted without the engine cutting out. On the other hand the Rolls Royce Merling engined Hurricanes and Spitfires were carburetor aspirated which meant that they faltered and lost power during a loop or when pulling negative g. A distinct disadvantage during a dog fight.
Later versions of the Merlin and the subsequent Griffon engine were fuel injected.
As you say the armament of the 109 was superior with two 8mm machine guns and two 20mm cannons against the Hurricane and Spitfire's eight .303 machine guns. The cannons gave it much greater fire power range, and inflicted much damage in a hit. Later versions of these British aircraft were fitted with cannons.
The Hurricane was inferior in performance to the 109, although being mainly of canvass and wood construction it could absorb a lot of hits without being weakened (unless a vital fuel line or control line was hit), and was quick and easy to repair. The Spitfire was however able to out turn the 109 in a dog fight.
Another advantage which the Luftwaffe enjoyed was battle experienced pilots gained with the Condor Legion in Spain, and in the early months of the war. Only a handfull of RAF survivors from the Battle of France had had battle experience, as did the Polish Squadrons, and the few Czech and French pilots who had escaped to Britain.
One advantage of the Me 109's Daimler-Benz engine was that it was fuel injected, enabling the aircraft to fly inverted without the engine cutting out. On the other hand the Rolls Royce Merling engined Hurricanes and Spitfires were carburetor aspirated which meant that they faltered and lost power during a loop or when pulling negative g. A distinct disadvantage during a dog fight.
Later versions of the Merlin and the subsequent Griffon engine were fuel injected.
As you say the armament of the 109 was superior with two 8mm machine guns and two 20mm cannons against the Hurricane and Spitfire's eight .303 machine guns. The cannons gave it much greater fire power range, and inflicted much damage in a hit. Later versions of these British aircraft were fitted with cannons.
The Hurricane was inferior in performance to the 109, although being mainly of canvass and wood construction it could absorb a lot of hits without being weakened (unless a vital fuel line or control line was hit), and was quick and easy to repair. The Spitfire was however able to out turn the 109 in a dog fight.
Another advantage which the Luftwaffe enjoyed was battle experienced pilots gained with the Condor Legion in Spain, and in the early months of the war. Only a handfull of RAF survivors from the Battle of France had had battle experience, as did the Polish Squadrons, and the few Czech and French pilots who had escaped to Britain.
In reply to Trangia:
Yes, this was a revelation to me on watching this highly interesting programme this evening, I was always under the impression that these planes were fairly evenly matched. It was interesting to note that Goering under-utilised the 109s in bomber escort duties, a role for which they were not suitable owing to their higher handling speed, a decision that may crucially have led in part to their defeat.
Yes, this was a revelation to me on watching this highly interesting programme this evening, I was always under the impression that these planes were fairly evenly matched. It was interesting to note that Goering under-utilised the 109s in bomber escort duties, a role for which they were not suitable owing to their higher handling speed, a decision that may crucially have led in part to their defeat.
In reply to Removed Userysingo:
Yes, I missed it because I live in Scotland and they had some moronic ball-kicking game on instead. I hope it'll be on BBCi.
From reading the posts so far, it seems they may not have mentioned the American contribution to the Battle of Britain, the supply of 100-octane fuel to the RAF. The Luftwaffe had to make do with 86-octane. It made quite a difference to engine performance.
Yes, I missed it because I live in Scotland and they had some moronic ball-kicking game on instead. I hope it'll be on BBCi.
From reading the posts so far, it seems they may not have mentioned the American contribution to the Battle of Britain, the supply of 100-octane fuel to the RAF. The Luftwaffe had to make do with 86-octane. It made quite a difference to engine performance.
In reply to Removed Userysingo:
Sorry, just noticed something else - the later Merlin and Griffon engines were never fuel-injected, they were simply fitted with a carburettas which worked upside-down!
Sorry, just noticed something else - the later Merlin and Griffon engines were never fuel-injected, they were simply fitted with a carburettas which worked upside-down!
In reply to Andy Long:
Blimey! Five posts in and the thread's been hijacked by a Top Gear watcher.
Interesting programme, but it didn't mention the disastrous performance of the Me 110, the twin-engined long range fighter, which had to be withdrawn from the battle and which meant that the short range Me 109s were over extended.
>
they may not have mentioned the American contribution to the Battle of Britain, the supply of 100-octane fuel to the RAF. The Luftwaffe had to make do with 86-octane. It made quite a difference to engine performance.Blimey! Five posts in and the thread's been hijacked by a Top Gear watcher.
Interesting programme, but it didn't mention the disastrous performance of the Me 110, the twin-engined long range fighter, which had to be withdrawn from the battle and which meant that the short range Me 109s were over extended.
In reply to Pekkie:
One thing which was not mentioned was that the Hurricanes worked best at higher altitudes where they were a broad match for the 109's whereas the Spitfires were better at lower altitudes.
That is one of the reasons for the legendary status of the Spitfire as they were the ones seen by the public visibly dogfighting in the sky overhead. Overall the Hurricane was widely regarded as better than the Spitfire(despite it being less pretty).
One thing which was not mentioned was that the Hurricanes worked best at higher altitudes where they were a broad match for the 109's whereas the Spitfires were better at lower altitudes.
That is one of the reasons for the legendary status of the Spitfire as they were the ones seen by the public visibly dogfighting in the sky overhead. Overall the Hurricane was widely regarded as better than the Spitfire(despite it being less pretty).
In reply to Pekkie:
Top Gear! Ha! No sir, I'm just one of the post-war generation who grew up saturated with the history of WW2. Top Gear is for people who, in the words of Lord Hives of Rolls-Royce, when he bought Frank Whittle's jet engine factory from tank-makers Rover, "...grub about on the ground...".
Top Gear! Ha! No sir, I'm just one of the post-war generation who grew up saturated with the history of WW2. Top Gear is for people who, in the words of Lord Hives of Rolls-Royce, when he bought Frank Whittle's jet engine factory from tank-makers Rover, "...grub about on the ground...".
In reply to Bahhhhumbug:
The Spitfire was more of a match for the 109 than the Hurricane. In 1940 there were many more Hurricane Squadrons and it was Hurricanes which fought in the Battle of France. Flown by an experienced pilot they could put up a good account of themselves against 109's, and more particularly against the twin engined Me 110's, but they were generally outclassed by the 109.
For this reason it was the Spitfires which provided fighter cover and took on the 109's, drawing them away from escorting the bombers whilst the Hurricanes were left to shoot down the enemy bombers. The Hurricane proved to be very good at this and was a very stable gun platform.
In broad terms the Battle of Britain was a team effort with the Spitfires taking on the enemy fighters (109's) and the Hurricanes taking on the bombers. It proved to be a deadly formula.
Because of their rugged construction and stablity Hurricanes went on to become the mainstay of British ground attack aircraft during the middle years of the War, particularly when fitted with cannons and air to ground rockets. They were used extensively in the Far East and in the Western Desert where they excelled at tank busting. They were superceded by the rocket firing Hawker Typhoons and finally the Hawker Tempests.
Spitfires with their subsequent improved marques continued to be the dominent British fighter throughout the war, and apart from a brief period where they were outclassed by the Focke-Wolf 190, they dominated the German fighters. The only other aircraft which came close to them in superiority was the North American Mustang one of the fasted developed aircraft ever, which was a joint British/American venture to create a long range fighter capable of providing continous escort for the American deep penetration daylight heavy bomber raids.
The jet engined Me 262 which entered service with the Luftwaffe in late 1944 and early 1945 might have altered the balance of fighter power once more had it been introduced earlier and in greater numbers. It was nothing like as manouverable in a dogfight as the Spitfire or Mustang, but it had for the era, a huge speed advantage and phenominal rate of climb which totally outclassed the Allied piston engined fighters.
The Spitfire was more of a match for the 109 than the Hurricane. In 1940 there were many more Hurricane Squadrons and it was Hurricanes which fought in the Battle of France. Flown by an experienced pilot they could put up a good account of themselves against 109's, and more particularly against the twin engined Me 110's, but they were generally outclassed by the 109.
For this reason it was the Spitfires which provided fighter cover and took on the 109's, drawing them away from escorting the bombers whilst the Hurricanes were left to shoot down the enemy bombers. The Hurricane proved to be very good at this and was a very stable gun platform.
In broad terms the Battle of Britain was a team effort with the Spitfires taking on the enemy fighters (109's) and the Hurricanes taking on the bombers. It proved to be a deadly formula.
Because of their rugged construction and stablity Hurricanes went on to become the mainstay of British ground attack aircraft during the middle years of the War, particularly when fitted with cannons and air to ground rockets. They were used extensively in the Far East and in the Western Desert where they excelled at tank busting. They were superceded by the rocket firing Hawker Typhoons and finally the Hawker Tempests.
Spitfires with their subsequent improved marques continued to be the dominent British fighter throughout the war, and apart from a brief period where they were outclassed by the Focke-Wolf 190, they dominated the German fighters. The only other aircraft which came close to them in superiority was the North American Mustang one of the fasted developed aircraft ever, which was a joint British/American venture to create a long range fighter capable of providing continous escort for the American deep penetration daylight heavy bomber raids.
The jet engined Me 262 which entered service with the Luftwaffe in late 1944 and early 1945 might have altered the balance of fighter power once more had it been introduced earlier and in greater numbers. It was nothing like as manouverable in a dogfight as the Spitfire or Mustang, but it had for the era, a huge speed advantage and phenominal rate of climb which totally outclassed the Allied piston engined fighters.
In reply to Trangia:
Yep, agree with you. The FW190 outclassed the Spitfire Mark V but was itself outclassed by the Mark IX.
The ME262 was a phenomenal aircraft, hampered by a lack of high temperature nickel steels which meant that its engines only lasted a few hours. Also Hitler's insistence that it be used as a fighter-bomber meant that it was a wasted asset, luckily for us. Adolf Galland, who flew both it and the Meteor operationally (the latter while serving in the Argentinian Air Force after the war) thought the ME262 to be the better aircraft. But then he would, wouldn't he...
Yep, agree with you. The FW190 outclassed the Spitfire Mark V but was itself outclassed by the Mark IX.
The ME262 was a phenomenal aircraft, hampered by a lack of high temperature nickel steels which meant that its engines only lasted a few hours. Also Hitler's insistence that it be used as a fighter-bomber meant that it was a wasted asset, luckily for us. Adolf Galland, who flew both it and the Meteor operationally (the latter while serving in the Argentinian Air Force after the war) thought the ME262 to be the better aircraft. But then he would, wouldn't he...
In reply to Removed Userysingo:
I'm not disagreeing with any of the observations above but surely the campaign turned in the Allied favour for 3 reasons;
1. Luftwaffe aircraft could not stay airborne over British territory for as long as Allied aircraft because of fuel consumed by the flight from France.
2. Goering decided to divert the Luftwaffe from attacks on RAF bases to bombing raids on our major cities, principally London. As Liddell Hart said,'civilians cannot surrender to aircraft in the sky'. Instead of bringing Britain to surrender, the 'Blitz' simply hardened resolve.
3. The RAF enjoyed radar, two-way radio and the 'Dowding' system.
I'm not disagreeing with any of the observations above but surely the campaign turned in the Allied favour for 3 reasons;
1. Luftwaffe aircraft could not stay airborne over British territory for as long as Allied aircraft because of fuel consumed by the flight from France.
2. Goering decided to divert the Luftwaffe from attacks on RAF bases to bombing raids on our major cities, principally London. As Liddell Hart said,'civilians cannot surrender to aircraft in the sky'. Instead of bringing Britain to surrender, the 'Blitz' simply hardened resolve.
3. The RAF enjoyed radar, two-way radio and the 'Dowding' system.
In reply to The Purple Pimpernel:
Absolutely. As the guys pointed out on BoB night, other people had radar, other people had good aircraft, only Britain had developed an integrated fighter-control system. This was because Britain knew that in the event of war it would inevitably be attacked from the air, as it had been in WW1.
Absolutely. As the guys pointed out on BoB night, other people had radar, other people had good aircraft, only Britain had developed an integrated fighter-control system. This was because Britain knew that in the event of war it would inevitably be attacked from the air, as it had been in WW1.
In reply to The Purple Pimpernel:
Yes, all of your points were highlighted in last night's programme. German radar I understand, was far better than the British system. However, as you say the Me109s had effecively only 10 minutes operation time in the skies above Britain before having to return owing to fuel consumption.
Yes, all of your points were highlighted in last night's programme. German radar I understand, was far better than the British system. However, as you say the Me109s had effecively only 10 minutes operation time in the skies above Britain before having to return owing to fuel consumption.
In reply to Trangia:
I can add some further detail to all this, because my great uncle, George Stainforth was involved with Squadron Leader Stanford Tuck in intensive test trials of a captured ME109 at the Royal Aircraft Establishment at Farnborough in June 1940. Stainforth and Tuck were chosen because they were regarded as the best pilots in Britain, Stanford Tuck being the most experienced fighter pilot, and Stainforth one of our leading test pilots, who had broken the world speed record in 1931.
The following extract is from my father's book, Not Found Wanting:
'.. In May, Wing Commander George Stainforth began an exhaustive flight testing programme of [the ME109]. When these tests were completed, Squadron Leader Stanford Tuck, then one of our most experienced fighter pilots of the day, was detailed to go to Farnborough and take part in mock air battles against the Messerschmidt in front of a distinguished audience of senior RAF commanders.
While Stanford Tuck flew the latest models of Hurricane and Spitfire in these trials, George flew the Messerschmidt, and put it through every kind of aerobatic maneouvre used in aerial combat at that time. The Messerschmidt was very fast, faster than the Hurricane, and only slightly slower than the Spitfire. It had good controls, George reported, but a poor turning circle, being slightly out-turned by both our fighters. Stanford Tuck had only to put his Hurricane in a tight turn for the ME109 to over-run him and for him to end up on the German fighter's tail. Also George found in a steep dive the Messerschmidt's flaps were apt to deploy differently, flipping the aircraft onto its back! Battle tactics developed during those trials were put to invaluable use in the Battle of Britain later that summer, and saved many lives.'
Another account on the internet says:
'[Stanford Tuck's] task was to take part in comparison trials of a captured Me-109E and a Spitfire Mark II. The tests began with Stainforth flying the Me-109 and Tuck flying the Spitfire in level flight, dives and turns, and at various speeds at different altitudes.
Halfway through the trials the pilots switched aircraft. Tuck reported that the Me-109 was "without a doubt a most delightful little airplane--not as maneuverable as the Spit...but certainly it was slightly faster, and altogether it had a wonderful performance." The one thing Tuck got out of the Farnborough trials was the ability to put himself inside the enemy's cockpit.'
I can add some further detail to all this, because my great uncle, George Stainforth was involved with Squadron Leader Stanford Tuck in intensive test trials of a captured ME109 at the Royal Aircraft Establishment at Farnborough in June 1940. Stainforth and Tuck were chosen because they were regarded as the best pilots in Britain, Stanford Tuck being the most experienced fighter pilot, and Stainforth one of our leading test pilots, who had broken the world speed record in 1931.
The following extract is from my father's book, Not Found Wanting:
'.. In May, Wing Commander George Stainforth began an exhaustive flight testing programme of [the ME109]. When these tests were completed, Squadron Leader Stanford Tuck, then one of our most experienced fighter pilots of the day, was detailed to go to Farnborough and take part in mock air battles against the Messerschmidt in front of a distinguished audience of senior RAF commanders.
While Stanford Tuck flew the latest models of Hurricane and Spitfire in these trials, George flew the Messerschmidt, and put it through every kind of aerobatic maneouvre used in aerial combat at that time. The Messerschmidt was very fast, faster than the Hurricane, and only slightly slower than the Spitfire. It had good controls, George reported, but a poor turning circle, being slightly out-turned by both our fighters. Stanford Tuck had only to put his Hurricane in a tight turn for the ME109 to over-run him and for him to end up on the German fighter's tail. Also George found in a steep dive the Messerschmidt's flaps were apt to deploy differently, flipping the aircraft onto its back! Battle tactics developed during those trials were put to invaluable use in the Battle of Britain later that summer, and saved many lives.'
Another account on the internet says:
'[Stanford Tuck's] task was to take part in comparison trials of a captured Me-109E and a Spitfire Mark II. The tests began with Stainforth flying the Me-109 and Tuck flying the Spitfire in level flight, dives and turns, and at various speeds at different altitudes.
Halfway through the trials the pilots switched aircraft. Tuck reported that the Me-109 was "without a doubt a most delightful little airplane--not as maneuverable as the Spit...but certainly it was slightly faster, and altogether it had a wonderful performance." The one thing Tuck got out of the Farnborough trials was the ability to put himself inside the enemy's cockpit.'
In reply to The Purple Pimpernel:
I would add a fourth. German aircrew who survived being shot down became prisoners of war and were thus lost to the Luftwaffe. British pilots went back to base, picked up another plane and re-entered the battle. There was no shortage of replacement aircraft on our side; the bottleneck was not having enough trained pilot.
I would add a fourth. German aircrew who survived being shot down became prisoners of war and were thus lost to the Luftwaffe. British pilots went back to base, picked up another plane and re-entered the battle. There was no shortage of replacement aircraft on our side; the bottleneck was not having enough trained pilot.
In reply to Gordon Stainforth:
Gordon,
More Spitfire facts. Through the variants of the Spitfire, the horse power of the Merlin and then the later Griffon was gradually increased from about 1000 to about 2500 hp. The Rolls Royce R in the S6B that George Stainforth used for his speed record in 1931 had a horsepower of 2600! The Griffon was actually developed from the R rather than directly from the Merlin. Maximum speed of the later Spitfires was about 460 mph, although a reconnaisance Spitfire in 1952 clocked an incredible 690 mph in an emergency dive.
Gordon,
More Spitfire facts. Through the variants of the Spitfire, the horse power of the Merlin and then the later Griffon was gradually increased from about 1000 to about 2500 hp. The Rolls Royce R in the S6B that George Stainforth used for his speed record in 1931 had a horsepower of 2600! The Griffon was actually developed from the R rather than directly from the Merlin. Maximum speed of the later Spitfires was about 460 mph, although a reconnaisance Spitfire in 1952 clocked an incredible 690 mph in an emergency dive.
In reply to Removed Userysingo:
yer very interesting for me was the fact that the spitfire was armed with bloody pee-shooters compared to the 20mm cannon the 109 had(not to mention fuel injection engines), iam sure the later mk spitfires must have had cannon?
Also when ever you pulled G-force in a spit the chances were the bloody engine would die due to fuel starvation as the float in the carburettor locked shut ...nightmare. Always knew it was a close run thing, if they had continued with the airfield raids and not switched to bomb London (after a German bomber accidental dropped bombs on London allegedly)i guess they could have taken the RAF to the brink.
All things told they massively underestimated out ability to replace aircraft and rotate pilots, both sides had ego probs with over counting kill etc Interestingly the brits thought a squadron or German aircraft was 20 in fact it was closer to 12 so we massively over estimated the German aircraft numbers.
ummm 303 15secs of fire or 20mm canon 50 secs of fire, carburettor or fuel injection......ill take the 109 please
yer very interesting for me was the fact that the spitfire was armed with bloody pee-shooters compared to the 20mm cannon the 109 had(not to mention fuel injection engines), iam sure the later mk spitfires must have had cannon?
Also when ever you pulled G-force in a spit the chances were the bloody engine would die due to fuel starvation as the float in the carburettor locked shut ...nightmare. Always knew it was a close run thing, if they had continued with the airfield raids and not switched to bomb London (after a German bomber accidental dropped bombs on London allegedly)i guess they could have taken the RAF to the brink.
All things told they massively underestimated out ability to replace aircraft and rotate pilots, both sides had ego probs with over counting kill etc Interestingly the brits thought a squadron or German aircraft was 20 in fact it was closer to 12 so we massively over estimated the German aircraft numbers.
ummm 303 15secs of fire or 20mm canon 50 secs of fire, carburettor or fuel injection......ill take the 109 please
In reply to Anonymous:
The carburetor problem was actually soved by a woman!
"One of the great problems as discerned by pilots was the tendency for the carburetted engine to cut out under negative 'g'. Luftwaffe pilots learned to escape by simply pushing the nose of their aircraft down into a dive, as their fuel- injected engines did not cut out under these circumstances. Many authors have criticised this aspect of the Merlin design. In reality, like most engineering, it resulted from a design compromise- the drop in temperature developed in a carburetor results in an increase in the density of the fuel-air mixture when compared to that of a fuel injection system. As a consequence the Merlin produced a higher specific power output (horse power per pound) that the equivalent German engine. It was felt that this gave a higher power to weight ratio for the fighter and (rightly or wrongly) that this outweighed the disadvantages. By 1941 Miss Tilly Shilling in Farnborough had developed a partial cure for the problem. A diaphragm across the float chambers with a calibrated hole (the infamous "Miss Shilling's orifice"!) allowed negative 'g' manouvres, and was fitted as standard from March 1941. Sustained zero 'g' manouvres were not sorted out until somewhat later. In 1942 an anti-g version of the SU carburetor was fitted to single and two-stage Merlins. 1943 saw the introduction of the Bendix-Stromburg carburetor which injected fuel at 5psi through a nozzle direct into the supercharger and was fitted to the Merlins 66, 70, 76, 77, and 85. The final development was the SU injection carburetor which injected fuel into the supercharger using a fuel pump driven as a fuction of crankshaft speed and engine pressures, which was fitted to the 100 series Merlins."
The carburetor problem was actually soved by a woman!
"One of the great problems as discerned by pilots was the tendency for the carburetted engine to cut out under negative 'g'. Luftwaffe pilots learned to escape by simply pushing the nose of their aircraft down into a dive, as their fuel- injected engines did not cut out under these circumstances. Many authors have criticised this aspect of the Merlin design. In reality, like most engineering, it resulted from a design compromise- the drop in temperature developed in a carburetor results in an increase in the density of the fuel-air mixture when compared to that of a fuel injection system. As a consequence the Merlin produced a higher specific power output (horse power per pound) that the equivalent German engine. It was felt that this gave a higher power to weight ratio for the fighter and (rightly or wrongly) that this outweighed the disadvantages. By 1941 Miss Tilly Shilling in Farnborough had developed a partial cure for the problem. A diaphragm across the float chambers with a calibrated hole (the infamous "Miss Shilling's orifice"!) allowed negative 'g' manouvres, and was fitted as standard from March 1941. Sustained zero 'g' manouvres were not sorted out until somewhat later. In 1942 an anti-g version of the SU carburetor was fitted to single and two-stage Merlins. 1943 saw the introduction of the Bendix-Stromburg carburetor which injected fuel at 5psi through a nozzle direct into the supercharger and was fitted to the Merlins 66, 70, 76, 77, and 85. The final development was the SU injection carburetor which injected fuel into the supercharger using a fuel pump driven as a fuction of crankshaft speed and engine pressures, which was fitted to the 100 series Merlins."
In reply to Anonymous:
I'll stand corrected but I thought they did. Instead of moving physical markers around on a map table they used coloured lamps to project symbols onto the underside of a transparent map, the so-called "Seeburg Table". The Germans developed a superb air defence system later in the war under the brilliant general Kammhuber.
Incidentally, the "Wurtzburg" parabolic antennas, purloined by the British at the end of the war, were used as the first radio-telescopes.
I'll stand corrected but I thought they did. Instead of moving physical markers around on a map table they used coloured lamps to project symbols onto the underside of a transparent map, the so-called "Seeburg Table". The Germans developed a superb air defence system later in the war under the brilliant general Kammhuber.
Incidentally, the "Wurtzburg" parabolic antennas, purloined by the British at the end of the war, were used as the first radio-telescopes.
In reply to Andy Long:
theres's definitely no argument about the technical precision of the German Radar.
Nor also that the lack of integration in the German air defence system allowed phantom raids to occur because the sound detection system sometimes responded to their own fighters intercepting fake raids and created a self proagating alert that travelled across Germany
theres's definitely no argument about the technical precision of the German Radar.
Nor also that the lack of integration in the German air defence system allowed phantom raids to occur because the sound detection system sometimes responded to their own fighters intercepting fake raids and created a self proagating alert that travelled across Germany
in fact I seem to remember a lecture at school in the 70s by a wartime 'boffin' who brought samples of German gear with him and some amazing films of tv guided missile tests from the viepoint of the operator and his console, who told us that the drawback of the Wurzburg was that it was so precise that it could only track one aircraft at a time, so 2 had to be used for target and fighter, even though the information could be plotted on the same table any inaccuracy in correlating the plots meant you could not be sure how the 2 plots related to each other.
This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.
Loading Notifications...