Talk:Heavy fighter/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Comments

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 The lack of success in France, I suggest, is bettter attributed to lack of training, outdated doctrine, and inexperience than aircraft type.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)

Some of this is pure opinion, not factual. The Hurricane has already been commented on, and I would concur with Tannin's view. However, this "The most successful heavy fighter of the war was the Lockheed P-38 Lightning. It was designed to carry heavy armament at high speed or long range. For a variety of reasons, notably its excellent twin turbochargers and its crew of one (rather than two or three), it dramatically outperformed its German and British counterparts", is purely an opinion. It's doubtful if the P38 outperformed the Mosquito in any area whatsoever, and was clearly inferior in most aspects. But I really don't think I or anyone else should be arguing the merits of particular aircraft, the article should be based purely on verifiable facts.

Patrickblue (talk) 12:20, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

And having just read Maury's reply to Tannin, again this is pure opinion, in fact it reads like something you see on youtube comments.

An aircraft's speed at the fight's altitude is not the most important, but just one factor in dogfighting in the eras we are talking about.

Starting with WW1,the Sopwith Camel was very slow in comparison to it's adversaries, as was the Fokker Triplane, yet they both were highly effective.

The Hurricane, and indeed the Spitfire had a lower wing loading than their main adversaries the 109 and 110, enabling them to out-turn the enemy aircraft. If either the 109 or 110 attempted to get into a dogfight on the horizontal plane with a Hurricane, they soon found themselves in trouble, and needed in the case of the 109 to use their superior speed to break off. A 110 doing this would invariably end up dead if the Hurricane pilot had any experience.

The German aircraft in the early part of the war were superior in the vertical plane, the British in the horizontal plane.

You are correct that the Hurricane was outdated, due to it's thick wing which limited it's speed, but it was certainly still effective in the right hands.

And it's an established fact that in the Battle of France that the RAF pilots had no combat experience and were expected to fly in the standard (and dangerously ineffective) vic formations, while the Luftwaffe had recent battle experience, and were allowed total freedom as to how they performed in the air.

Patrickblue (talk) 12:55, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

little correction

The articel says: "Only the Northrop P-61 Black Widow of the USAAF was ever built from the start, during the World War II era, solely to be a night fighter."

This is not correct, there is another one: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heinkel_He_219 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 176.52.205.242 (talk) 14:38, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

Major False Statement, More Coverage Needed

Only a single short paragraph is given on heavy fighters in the modern age, and it falsely and without references states that "As missiles became the standard weapons for air combat any fighter of any size could be successful in combat against almost any target, making the distinction between heavy and light fighters less relevant".

From before WWII to now, the argument over lightweight vs. heavyweight fighters has raged on, a huge military procurement issue that is not touched in this article (or the main fighter aircraft article). That is an astonishing oversight, given that national security and hundreds of billions of dollars are at stake. It is simply swept under the rug with that single sentence above.

As an example, in modern times this resulted in the ferocious procurement struggle in the United States that eventually led to the lightweight F-16 being adopted to supplement the twice as expensive F-15. Consider their combat records and how they were attained. The F-15 record is 103 wins, no air to air losses, and 3 losses to ground fire (F-15E) (see https://migflug.com/jetflights/the-combat-statistics-for-all-the-aircraft-currently-in-use/). The F-16 record is 76 wins, 1 air to air loss (a Turkish pilot caught napping in the cockpit), and 5 losses to ground fire. The single air to air F-16 loss is statistically insignificant and is the pilot’s fault. A strong F-16 point is that the great majority of its sorties have been flown in air to ground mode, and it has still almost matched the F-15 record where almost all sorties have been in air to air mode. The few ground losses only highlight the quality of the lightweight F-16, since in the history of air war from WWII to now the ground losses have run about 5X to 10X the air to air to losses (the F-16 must have flown more than 20X the air to ground sorties of the F-15E, and look at the stats). The F-16 has also statistically gotten the better of the F-15 in their long history of practice combat (see below references). So, when you compare the combat statistics and the costing, the F-16 ability compared to the F-15 is almost as dramatic as the P-51 compared to the P-38. The F-16 can do anything the F-15 can do in air to air (actually a bit better), AND do great air to ground work, for half the price per plane. When you take into account the total combat value of the F-16’s air to ground abilities, its total effect on combat outcome per dollar must be at least 5X as good as the F-15’s.

To state that a better air force for half the price is "less relevant" is a complete misrepresentation of both practical reality and the literature of the field. A sampling of the references that indicates how critically important this issue actually is in the modern age is given below.

1. Mike Spick, “Brassey’s Modern Fighters”, 2000, p. 30: “Size has a great influence on visual detection. Several years ago, at a USAF Aggressor Squadron gathering, the writer posed the question: what did they want to fly on their next assignment? The unanimous verdict was the F-16. Sure, the F-15 Eagle was a great fighter, but who wanted to be the largest target in the sky? The F-15 was fine in-bound and head-on, but the instant it turned and showed its planform it became visible at about 8nm (15km) to pilots in smaller fighters which were still outside its visual range!”

2. Lockheed Forth Worth Company (press release) http://www.thefreelibrary.com/F-16+TEAMS+DOMINATE+USAF+AIR-TO-AIR+COMPETITION-a015848749 The lightweight F-16 has dominated the heavy F-15 over their entire history of simulated combat, including BVR (Sprey, p. 149).

3. On the critical issue of effectiveness per budget of light vs. heavy modern fighters, see http://nation.time.com/2013/04/02/costly-flight-hours/ for hourly operating cost of USAF aircraft as reported by the USAF. The F-16 is barely half the cost of the F-15 per hour, while performing better per plane.

4. http://foxtrotalpha.jalopnik.com/how-to-win-in-a-dogfight-stories-from-a-pilot-who-flew-1682723379 |title=How To Win In A Dogfight: Stories From A Pilot Who Flew F-16s And MiGs

5. Professional analysis through 4th generation fighters shows that among heavier fighters only the F-15 has been generally competitive with lighter fighters, and its maneuvering performance is exceeded by several lighter fighters such as the F-16. (James Burton, “The Pentagon Wars: Reformers Challenge the Old Guard”, Kindle locations 468–481.)

6. James Stevenson, The Pentagon Paradox, Naval Institute Press, 1993. Page 62: "Fighter aircraft like the P-51, F8F Bearcat, and F-16 are examples of fighters that are lighter than their contemporaries, are less expensive, and have greater performance. Because fighter aircraft of lower weight can have increased performance, can cost less, and can create a larger force, these three benefits are embodied in the term lightweight fighter." Additional direct info on light vs heavy (this entire authoritative book by an extreme insider is fundamentally devoted to this issue) in the modern age given on pages 19-30, 33-50, 62-84, 125-168, 178, 234-235, 239, 242-247, and 338-340.

7. Jan Ahlgren et. al., “Gripen: The First Forth Generation Fighter”, 2002, p. 18 cost and weight are in direct proportion, hence Gripen is a lightweight (half the weight of preceding Viggen), pp. 32-33, 36 again Gripen a purpose designed light fighter with lower per hour cost and lifecycle cost.

8. Gerard Keijsper, “Saab Gripen, Sweden’s 21st Century Multi-Role Aircraft”, 2003, p. 34 Gripen’s small size gives it surprise advantage.

9. Klaus Huenecke, “Modern Combat Aircraft Design”, 1987, p. 24-26 modest weight needed for low wing loading and maneuverability, leading to F-16 and F-18, p. 31 overall dimensions must be small for surprise advantage,

10. Ivan Rendall, “Splash One, the Story of Jet Combat”, 1997, pages 125-126 (including F-104, MiG-21, Mirage III being purpose designed light fighters), p. 127 F-105 as a heavy, p. 129 F-106 as an expensive heavy weapons system in concept, p. 231 the heavy F-14 and F-15 were almost unaffordable, the F-14 so much so it was almost cancelled, pp. 231-233 lightweights large advantages in maneuverability and cost, p. 236 heavies too expensive (France had to abandon heavy Mirage 4000 due to cost), p. 238 Kfir a good lightweight, p. 241 the MiG-29 a lightweight compared to the F-15.

11. Mike Spick, “Modern Fighter Combat”, 1987, pages 21-22, 67-69.

12. T. West Hubbard, The Fighter Mafia: Vietnam, the Fighter Jet, and the Future of the Air Force, 2014. Kindle location 1116: "The early flight tests proved extremely successful as both [the F-16 and F-18] light fighters easily outmaneuvered the F-4, exactly as the MiGs had done in Vietnam."

13. William Stuart, Northrop F-5 Case Study in Aircraft Design, 1978. This engineering text is the best publication in print on the strategy and design of the lightweight F-5 aimed at outperforming heavier and more expensive fighters. See in particular p.7 “The objective was to reverse the trend in complexity, operating cost and maintenance.”, also pp. 13-17, again noting p. 17 that “Because aircraft cost is essentially on a dollar-per-pound basis, it is obvious (via lightweight) that a significant procurement cost savings would be achieved.”

14. Bill Gunston and Mike Spick, “Modern Air Combat”, 1982

15. Grant Hammond, “The Mind of War, John Boyd and American Security”, 2001, pages 80-83, 87, 96-99 are mostly devoted to the direct issue of light vs. heavy. Pages 98-99 review that the lower cost lightweight F-16 has secured 1797 foreign sales compared to only 245 for the heavy, twice as expensive F-15.

16. Robert Coram, “Boyd, the Fighter Pilot Who Changed the Art of War”, pages 212 (In Vietnam the USAF flying heavies had 1 ace, North Vietnam flying lightweights had 16). Page 231 “Hollywood and the movie "Top Gun" notwithstanding, the F-14 Tomcat is a lumbering, poor performing, aerial truck.”, p. 260-262, p. 308 the USAF was so afraid the F-16 would outperform the F-15 they deliberately restricted its wing area (the F-16 still wins all trials against the F-15), page 340 the USAF tried to hide that the F-16 was more maneuverable than the F-15.

17. Brian Manes, Major, USAF, MS Thesis “Extending USAF F-16 Force Structure”, Air Command and Staff College, 2001, p. 17, downloadable from http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/library/report/2001/01-079.pdf

18. LtCol Patrick Higby, “Promise and Reality: Beyond Visual Range (BVR) Air-To-Air Combat”, Air War College, Maxwell Air Force Base, 2005, see p. 5 covering surprise advantage of lightweight fighters as a function of human visual acuity, available at http://pogoarchives.org/labyrinth/11/09.pdf

19. Schallhorn et al., "Visual Search in Air Combat", Naval Aerospace Medical Research Laboratory and Naval Fighter Weapons School (TopGun), Oct. 1991, p. 6, http://oai.dtic.mil/oai/oai?verb=getRecord&metadataPrefix=html&identifier=ADA241347</ref>

20. Harry Snyder, et al., “Air-To-Air Target Acquisition: Factors and Means of Improvement”, Virginia Polytechnic University, July 1979, prepared for USAF School of Aerospace Medicine, p. 15 (p. 18 as read on Adobe), http://oai.dtic.mil/oai/oai?verb=getRecord&metadataPrefix=html&identifier=ADA087848

21. The Rand Corporation, "Air Combat, Past, Present, and Future", 2009, available at https://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/files/2008_RAND_Pacific_View_Air_Combat_Briefing.pdf

22. Pierre Sprey, "Comparing the Effectiveness of Air-to-Air Fighters: F-86 to F-18". The finest work on the subject in print, by a top combat aircraft architect and air combat operations researcher, available from http://pogoarchives.org/labyrinth/09/08.pdf. The issues of light vs heavy in the modern age are addressed on pages 55, 57, 58, 63, 88-90, 98, 113, 130-139, 143-152, and 156-159.

23.Lanchester's laws, or the salvo combat model, that a larger number of less-sophisticated units will tend to be successful over a smaller number of more advanced ones; the damage dealt is based on the square of the number of units firing, while the quality of those units has only a linear effect on the outcome. This non-linear relationship favors the light and lightweight fighter (Huenecke, p. 31).

In light of the seriousness of this unreferenced misrepresentation, and the references to the contrary, a new section on the heavy fighter in the modern era is warranted. PhaseAcer (talk) 07:32, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

You could have just said. "I think this phrase is not supported on the literature. And that the post war section needs expansion". GraemeLeggett (talk) 09:13, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

The big question is, what the expanded content should say. The large number of sources posted here provides a useful start in taking the discussion a step further than merely highlighting the need. PhaseAcer has had trouble in related articles with being frequently reverted and much misunderstanding and lengthy discussion has taken place over the reasons for reversion. The selection of sources above gives us all a chance to listen to an expert, learn and help improve this article. For a start, the tagged claim is pretty much contradicted by sources aired in those other discussions (I have not checked the ones posted here yet) and I would suggest simply deleting it. This time round PhaseAcer is being cautious and seeking to avoid antagonising other editors, in posting here before doing so, and I can only applaud that. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 11:05, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

Graeme, I have said numerous times over the last 4 years that the above statement was wrong and in complete defiance of the literature. It has continued to be presented for years with the support of the editors, with only 3(!) antique references given in this article. The references were only expanded within the last 2 weeks, apparently as a result of my prodding on the P-38 vs P-51 issue, but not with regards to this gigantic current issue, and this incorrect modern presentation remains. To show just how wrong and non-neutral the presentation is, I am now driving up with a truckload of references. I am finally taking that approach because the 7 strong references I recently presented on the P-51 as a purpose designed light fighter, and its amazingly better combat record and effect on WWII than the P-38 (5X the per dollar value against enemy fighters, over 10X per dollar better with bomber escort taken into account), without a single counter-reference, were not enough to convince the editors. PhaseAcer (talk) 18:17, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

OK so I deleted the challenged claim, and also the previous one it was built on, that we don't talk about the "heavy fighter" any more. Yes we do:here, here and here took me all of five minutes to find. Once we clean out these existing PoV claims, we should have something to build a bigger, better and more neutral section on. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 12:28, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

PS here is an industry report which treats the F-15 as in the "heavy fighter" class. So we have an evident continuity of usage to expand on. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 12:44, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

In addition to Steel presenting common usage of the term “heavy fighter”, and in addition to the stack of references I provided above that use “heavy fighter” and “light fighter” and “lightweight fighter”, the military aviation press commonly uses the terms “lightweight fighter” and “light fighter” in current publications. For example, at we have “The National Interest” referring to the JF-17, F-16, JAS 39 Gripen, and MiG-29 all as “light fighters”. At “Combat Aircraft” we see both “lightweight fighter” and “light fighter” used to describe a possible fighter derivative of the Boeing/Saab TFX advanced trainer. In the literature, the term “heavy fighter” does not have to be at the very high end, and the terms “light fighter” and "lightweight fighter" (interchangeable in the literature) do not have to be at the very low end (which has been a definition that some Wikipedia editors have tried to promote without references for years). Both light fighters and heavy fighters can be practical “standard” fighters, not poorly performing extremes. This definition issue has been a big problem among the editors, but if we follow what the literature says, that problem is solved. And, if we simply follow the references, we are also guided in the way heavy and light are presented in Wikipedia fighter articles such as this one. What the literature says is that this is a very critical issue, and has been from before WWII to now. PhaseAcer (talk) 19:58, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

Putnam's Biplane to monoplane : aircraft development, 1919-1939 978-0851778747 p.59 re: "By 1926, worried that fighters were becoming too heavy, too slow and too expensive, the French instituted a lightweight fighter competition..." & "While the program was eventually deemed a failure.." (it then goes on about the Dewoitine D.27 as the only partial success). Plenty of other sources saying similar things, I just haven't had time to dig them out, being busy with other things. - NiD.29 (talk) 21:05, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for all the well-sourced arguments! I’ve been working on the ‘heavy fighter’ page a lot, and I agree, something needs to be done about the modern-era discussion.

However, I think we need to make it abundantly clear that the heavy fighters of pre-WWII to early post-WWII had a very different role than the heavy fighters of today, and it’s no way a continuation of the term.

We would also need to determine what exactly makes a modern fighter “heavy.” Yes, I’ve seen the F-15 (especially the F-15E Strike Eagle) referred to as a heavy (or heavyweight) fighter. But would we consider the F-22 or F-35 a heavy fighter? When they’re clearly not lightweight fighters; and they’re similar to F-15s, if not outdoing them?

I think the modern complement to “lightweight” fighter is “heavyweight.”

Anyways, this article is about the specific class of fighters of the pre-WWII era to early-post. I just think we should handle the modern-era very carefully and specifically. MarkFilgerleskiWiki (talk) 01:11, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

Hi, thank you for your work here. Yes, ideas about what makes a fighter heavy/heavyweight have changed over the years. There is also the issue that the majority of fighters are neither classed as heavy nor as light but sit somewhere in between: just because a fighter is not light or lightweight does not mean it is heavy. I do think we need an article on the "heavy fighter" generally, and exploring the historical changes of emphasis is an important part of the subject. Whether we split off child articles on specific historical periods should be based on the length and complexity of the total content. Would it be better to jump the gun, as it were, and start that overall treatment as a fresh article, moving this one aside to make room for it, or to let this one grow until the need to split off a major period becomes pressing? My feeling is that this article is not a long one and we should let the broader historical perspective reshape it before attempting any split. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 10:38, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

Over the last 10 years I have made an effort to gather the references on the light vs heavy issue, which is why I was able to stack up the 23 references listed above. I am not aware of any exact definition of light or heavy by any authoritative references that are accepted industry wide. But, there is a practical definition that is quite clear among the references, and it applies from WWII to now. That definition, by description and by example, is that light and lightweight fighters are the same thing, and they are efficient fighters on the lower half of the practical range, with no more features or weapons than necessary to achieve the mission. They are almost always single engine, with the only exception I am aware of being the F-5 (two little J-85 Lear jet engines) and the original YF-17 prototype of the F-18. By contrast, heavyweights are on the upper half of the practical weight range, with extra features such as more powerful radar and heavier weapon loads. Usually they are twins, very often with very similar or the exact same engines as lightweights, but sometimes they feature an unusually large and powerful single engine. It is often stated that the heavies are longer range or seek longer range, but that is a technical error. The Breguet Range (aeronautics) Equation, known since the 1930's and taught to aeronautical engineers at the sophomore or junior level in college, shows that range is a function of relative drag (drag per lb), fuel fraction, and engine efficiency. Thus, the only theoretical difference in range between lightweight and heavyweights is that twins tend to be actually have more relative drag (prop fighters having three main non-lifting drag elements in engines and fuselage, and jets having more boat-tail drag) and the heavies then tend to have shorter range. The very light Zero and the lightweight P-51 had the longest ranges of any WWII fighters. When the F-16 first came out, it had longer range than any other fighter in the U.S. inventory (until the F-15 got conformal tanks, which can also be applied to the F-16 to again put it ahead).

By example, light vs heavy examples by this practical definition are P-51 vs. P-38 (one V-12 vs. two V-12's), Spitfire vs. Mosquito (one Merlin or two), F-104 vs. F-4 (one J-79 vs two J-79's), F-16 vs F-15 (one F-100 vs. two F-100's), and JAS 39 Gripen vs. F/A-18E Super Hornet (one Volvo RM12 derived from the F404 vs two F414's derived from the F404. Note: the original Hornet came out of the American Lightweight Fighter program, but the Super Hornet has gotten much bigger and is actually about 14% heavier than the F-15).

There are two reasons this practical definition is important. First, the lighter fighters usually get better combat results plane for plane, because of surprise and maneuverability advantages (the "Fighter Effectiveness Criteria" as described in the Light fighter article). For example, the P-51 got far better combat results than the P-38, with a kill ratio of 3.6 to 1, compared to 1.4 to 1, for half the price. The F-16 has almost matched the F-15 air to air record, despite most of its sorties being in air to ground mode, and has gotten the better of the F-15 over their long history of simulated combat, for half the price. But a key issue that you only get in the more professional references is cost and resource consumption. The lightweights are typically 51% to 54% the cost of the heavies (fighters are bought by the pound), and their hourly operating cost is in the same proportion. Because they generally can fight as well or better for half the cost, and the same budget can buy twice as many (or get the same numbers for half the budget), they tend to be war winners. This is an enormously important and quite well referenced issue, but for some reason it gets very little coverage in Wikipedia. It is not mentioned in this article, and as a top level issue it certainly should be. PhaseAcer (talk) 01:37, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

PhaseAcer and Steelpillow, I think we simply need to specify that, while the terms light/lightweight/heavy/heavyweight (and I’m betting at least a few people have thrown “medium” around) are used — and we can even mention that the terms are used somewhat nebulously — I think we should specify a few things.

First of all, can we all agree that, as a class of aircraft, the WWII-era “heavy fighter” is not the same as modern “heavy/heavyweight” fighters? Point being, the pre-WWII to early post-WWII “heavy fighter/destroyer” was a distinct class of aircraft, that is no longer used.

Secondly, while the modern terms of “heavy/heavyweight fighter” may be employed, they’re used rather nebulously, and they don’t *necessarily* indicate an aircraft class with an entirely different role from light/lightweight fighters. There aren’t a huge number of missions/roles that a modern heavy can do that a modern light can’t. Point being, the modern terms simply denote literal weights of airframes (and co$t), not necessarily an aircraft class with entirely different roles. Whereas the light versus heavy fighter designation in WWII did indeed denote two entirely separate aircraft classes, each with their own (very distinctive) strengths and weaknesses.

PhaseAce I think your points and sources regarding the ability of (modern) lightweight fighters to perform at either a level approaching or even exceeding heavyweight fighters in the same roles only strengthen my above arguments. These are not separate classes of aircraft, they merely differ in weight/size/cost.

Third of all, I think we need to be very careful about the sources we use when expanding the modern day section. Any defense reporter can throw around the light/heavy designation. Any author can do the same. I’d personally rather see the manufacturers and various nation’s defense departments used as sources. In the end, they’re the definitive source on the distinction between modern light/heavy fighters.

SteelPillow, in regards to creating a new page vs expanding upon the modern section of the current heavy fighter page, personally I would go with latter. At least until we have enough definitive sources built up that we can have a page detailing the difference between modern lightweight fighters and heavy ones.

Cheers, everyone! I’m enjoying discussing this with you all :) MarkFilgerleskiWiki (talk) 02:27, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

Mark, we could go back and forth for weeks discussing what we think are the most true and important things in the light vs. heavy issue (I spent over 100 hours in rewriting the Light fighter article four years ago). There are whole books on this topic, and we don't need to rewrite them here. Instead, I recommend we simply follow Wikipedia policy on neutrality and references in order to not get bogged down. That means reporting what the references say, and reporting where they disagree, while attempting to impartially weight them. We should not get caught up in rejecting what meet the definition of qualified Wikipedia references, as that is explicitly non-neutral according to policy. I've given a large set of qualified references above that deal with these issues, in depths from short comments to long expositions chock full of data, graphs, cost effectiveness, and combat results. Of this set, I recommend as most worthy of a deep reading "Comparing the Effectiveness of Air-to-Air Fighters: F-86 to F-18", by Pierre Sprey, and "The Pentagon Paradox", by James Stevenson. These are two top professionals who have spent a lifetime researching and analyzing these very issues. Some of their presentation is too sophisticated and detailed for a Wikipedia article, but a reader who really digs into them gets quite an education on fighter effectiveness, fighter history, and light vs. heavy. PhaseAcer (talk) 05:36, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

I see a lot of editorial opinion being aired in this debate. Wikipedia has a standard policy on how to deal with such stalemates: WP:RS and, in order to demonstrate that, WP:CITE - and absolutely forbidden in articles is the WP:OR which so saturates this sterile debate. We have shedloads more such [[WP:POLICY|policies and guidelines telling you how things are done here, it's no good paying lip service to them, you have to implement them in all their sordid and gory detail. Check the reliability of your sources, put up those ref tags, fill them with publication details and, if need be, relevant quotations. It's no good just claiming that sources for your PoV are vaguely out there somewhere, If you guys do not cite your sources in a rigorous and adequate manner, your debate will never end. And take it one step at a time, one factoid, one citation, then move on to the next, brick by brick. Sheesh, you guys! Time for me to get my coat and exit this fracas, either you will learn or you will not. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 08:21, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

Steel, I am in complete agreement with you. We just report the majority view and any significant minority views of the references. If desired, I can generate some text and reference quotes as a starting point. I can post that here on the Talk page, or directly in the article, as the editors prefer. PhaseAcer (talk) 15:06, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

Just come back for a moment to say that I think the Fighter aircraft article is the best place to establish an overview of the issues at stake and the nature of the historical tensions. I have begun a reshaping of that article, so we'll have to see if that can be sustained. Meanwhile, @PhaseAcer: yes do post quotes. Please also be sure to post the author, book title, publisher, year of publication, and page number/s on which the quote appears. This is the absolutely fundamental thing you need to do. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 17:13, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

Steel, a fairly extensive reference list with quotes and page numbers for the modern era is given above. It was meant to use for this article, which does seem the most logical place to give a summary of heavy fighters in the modern age. This giant topic is now stuck with one small and very misleading paragraph in this article. There are more references still in the light fighter article which are quite applicable here. I post a similar list specifically for WWII below, which I shall also post on the light fighter talk page. I can get more detailed on the quotes if needed, and more references can be added if needed to prove the point.

A problem in the main fighter article is the previous refusal of the editors to allow the fighter effectiveness criteria and the issue of light and heavy to be summarized there. I provided a section on these issues several years ago (still on the Talk page), at the same time that I posted the "Fighter weapons" section that was accepted with almost no changes. These are essential topics needed to understand fighter aircraft, but so far have only been allowed in the light fighter article. I was not allowed even to point to the light and heavy fighter articles. The hostility to even acknowledging the existence of light vs heavy in the main fighter article is amazing, and from that I would say that coverage of the references even here, though more likely to be allowed, will still be a struggle. That is why I am stacking the references up so high for heavy in the modern era above, and on light and heavy in the WWII era below. I am seriously wondering if arbitration will be required to allow neutral coverage of the references on these key issues. Every time I have tried to present the references on this subject, I've had editors coming after me with torches and pitchforks. PhaseAcer (talk) 06:45, 19 January 2020 (UTC)

Yes of course, your list above has much of that in it, I must apologise for my brain fade. I do hope I can find time to go through it properly soon. But I did think that I had removed the very misleading paragraph you have been complaining about - is it still there?

I think it too early to try any kind of arbitration, with these technical issues we tend to get judged as much by our social media and editorial skills as by the content issue at stake. The issue here deserves better. So far I have at least introduced the existence of heavy and light fighter classes to the fighter aircraft article and it has not yet been challenged. One small step at a time, sigh. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 10:13, 19 January 2020 (UTC)

[Update] I have now skimmed through the above list of sources and most of the online links. I found plenty of evidence about desirable fighter characteristics and which fighters fare better, and much of that needs to be distilled out into this or a similar article. But there is very little to say that Fighter X is classed as a "heavy fighter" or that Fighter Y is classed as a "light" or "lightweight" fighter, so the majority of sources are not relevant to that debate. Four sources do bear close enough to pass comment:

• Stevenson says that the P-51, F8F Bearcat, and F-16 have benefits which "are embodied in the term lightweight fighter". This stops short of saying that any of these types actually is classed as a lightweight fighter, so our policy on original research means that we cannot cite him in support of saying so either. We can usefully cite him in describing the characteristics of the lightweight fighter.
• Manes says that "Although touted as a lightweight multi-role fighter, [the F-16] was primarily designed for an air-to-air role," so at best we can say that it was offered as a lightweight fighter, again based on what Mane says we cannot say that it was designed as one, because that is not what he actually says.
• Ahlgren et al. say that "hence Gripen is a lightweight (half the weight of preceding Viggen)", but the context for "lightweight" is not given above here. We can probably assume it means fighter, but if challenged then consensus might make us back down. Someone with access to the book needs to dig deeper before we can use it.
• Higby is the interesting one. "...the F-16s which fought in Desert Storm are a far cry from the “lightweight” fighter originally envisioned by the lightweight fighter mafia. The other “lightweight” fighter program grew into the porky Navy/Marine F-18, which also performed poorly in air-to-air situations in Desert Storm. ... Perhaps a better testimony for the lightweight fighter plus Sidewinder combination are the British Harriers in the 1982 Falklands War: 27 AIM-9s were fired for 24 hits and 19 kills (P_K = 70.4%)." So here we have types which were conceived as lightweight fighters but did not necessarily end up as such. And a "lightweight fighter mafia", which hints strongly at the controversy we need to uncover and document.

I hope the above gives some flavour of how I feel we need to approach this. Our own opinions and extrapolations are worthless, only those explicitly expressed by the cited sources can carry the article along. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 18:14, 19 January 2020 (UTC)

Sounds like Higby is trying to coopt (V/STOL) naval air defence fighters versus (defenceless?) naval attack aircraft operated at limit of endurance by less experienced pilots to make the lightweight fighter point. GraemeLeggett (talk) 18:38, 19 January 2020 (UTC)

Not really. He was focused on Desert Storm and the Harrier remark was used only to undermine - well, read it for yourself, the link is up there. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 19:26, 19 January 2020 (UTC)

The pointers to light and heavy in the main fighter aircraft article are a good start. A brief summary is needed there on this key issue. It is a thousand times weightier than some of the issues taking up space there, like rocket fighters. The remaining paragraph here on heavies in the modern era is not only far less than justified, but has errors. For example, it is implying that twins have greater range. The Breguet Range equation shows that is not true. I thus placed a cite request and note on the range equation there. PhaseAcer (talk) 18:06, 19 January 2020 (UTC)

Further discussion

Let me summarize a few key points. The initial problem pointed out here was that the article was incorrectly and without any references claiming that the issue of light and heavy almost did not matter in the modern era, since any fighter could with missiles shoot down any other fighter. That is both wrong and in conflict with a mountain of modern literature. The main reason it is wrong is that for most missions a single engine "lightweight" fighter can do most missions as well or better, for half the cost. That has been a giant issue in the literature for decades, since getting an air force as good or better for half the price most certainly does matter a LOT. So, we have to fix that, somehow.

But the literature, while extensive, has several problems for Wikipedia purposes. One problem is that there is not a universally accepted definition of "lightweight" and "heavyweight". For example, James Stevenson's definition of lightweight is "lighter than its contemporaries"(bottom of page 21). While Stevenson is one of the very best authors on the subject, that definition is sorely lacking. It is too imprecise to use as a final definition (i.e., which contemporary?) It is a legitimate reference, and we can quote it, but for practical purposes, it is not good enough.

A second problem is that none of the authors are writing with an eye to providing a perfect brief Wikipedia quote for defining a particular aircraft as light or heavy. Sometimes they flat say it, but more often it is by description of all the features that would match a reasonable definition.

And, a third problem is that even when that author makes us comfortable by saying that a certain plane is a "lightweight" or "heavyweight", the term itself is imprecise because there is no universal definition. So, his statement of light or heavy cannot be taken as highly weighty all by itself.

And, a 4th problem is that not all aircraft would fit into the light or heavy category even if we had a precise definition (some are in the middle).

The only way out of this quandary is for us to summarize the literature in its entirety, taking all the statements and practical issues into account. That is uncomfortable for us, but it is MUCH better than what was in the heavy and light fighter articles before this literature was brought. For example, the light fighter article used to claim without reference of any kind that a light fighter was defined as a very light fighter that fulfilled a high power to weight ratio performance niche. This excluded the whole practical class of lightweight fighters. That useless definition was apparently pulled out of thin air--NO reference I have seen in hundreds of hours of study ever said anything like that.

OK then, what is that "sense" of the full literature? We go by the examples and the intended meaning of the many statements and discussions. What comes out of that process is that the sense of the literature is that "lightweight fighters" are small, low cost, maneuverable, and have just enough weapons to do the job. They are usually single engine minimalist designs for the missions they are assigned. By contrast what are called "heavyweight fighters" are usually twin engine, often the same engines used in the lightweights, carry heavier weapons loads, have extra features like longer range radar in the modern era (often the radar antenna size for certain range dictates needing the power of two engines to overcome the drag of a large fuselage), and usually costing about twice as much as the lightweights. A strong reference there is the example of the American Lightweight Fighter Program resulting in the F-16, which fits that definition. It also fits perfectly with the historically important lights and heavies of the past, such as Bf 109 compared to Bf 110, P-51 compared to P-38, Mirage compared to F-4, etc.

And, that is about as precise as the literature lets us be. Whether a particular fighter falls into light or heavy is not really dependent on whether a particular author directly calls it light or heavy, it is how it fits on the curve of weight and cost compared to other fighters. It is not perfectly comfortable for Wikipedia reference quoting purposes. But, it is as good as practical reality allows, it is honest (unlike what we had before), and it is a thousand times better than what the articles presented before. And, if don't accept something like that as our working definition, we will never be able to address these issues in these articles. PhaseAcer (talk) 06:47, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

P-51 and P-38

My understanding of the development process is that the P-51 is effectively a P-40 equivalent (built to similar spec in terms of minimum armament, engine choice, and down to a cost) but built with latest techniques in construction and aerodynamics which give a good aircraft but it's not until it's given a better engine that it performs to its best up at altitude and then becomes comparable with the P-38 up there. GraemeLeggett (talk) 21:26, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

Graeme, the important P-38 vs P-51 issue is not in details like when the switch to the Merlin engine happened. It is in the strategic effect on WWII and the example it shows for the importance of optimum fighter design. Let’s check the operations research issues and ETO combat record (the “experiment” in a scientific examination) of these two planes to compare their performance as weapons systems. The P-51B-D with empty weight about 7,635 lb (3,463 kg) and costing approximately $51k per aircraft ("D" version), flew 214,000 sorties, lost 2,520 aircraft in combat, and claimed 4,950 air-to-air kills and 4,131 German aircraft destroyed on the ground. The much larger twin engine P-38 with empty weight of about 12,800 lb (5,800 kg) and costing $97k per aircraft, flew 130,000 sorties in the ETO, lost 1,758 in combat, and claimed 1,771 air to air kills and 749 on the ground. The P-51 scored 0.023 kills per sortie, while the P-38 scored 0.014 kills per sortie. The Mustang enemy aircraft destroyed to loss ratio was 3.6 to 1, while the P-38 scored 1.4 to 1 (which means on a cost basis, German fighters were beating it). The P-51 scored 180% more kills in the air and 552% more kills on the ground than the P-38, while flying only 65% more sorties. On a kills per budget basis the P-51 was 4.9X as good as the P-38, and much better than that when its longer-range superior bomber protection is added in (each heavy bomber saved was 4X to 6X the cost of a P-51). The United States was on the verge of halting the day bomber campaign over Germany due to unsustainable losses, until the P-51 was finally switched from ground attack and onto the escort mission (the generals wanted the P-38 to have that role, gave it the first shot, and only pulled it out when it became clear it was losing the air war). The P-51 saved the air war for the United States, and that is the strategic effect of optimum design I am talking about.

But, I am not allowed to say that in any article, despite bringing 7 references on the P-51 being a purpose designed lightweight fighter that ran up that superior combat record due to its light fighter virtues. Other editors have different opinions, and zero references, but “consensus” keeps that important example of lightweight fighter effectiveness from being presented. That is why, on this even more important issue of lightweight vs heavyweight in the modern era, I am bringing so many references. The issue is too vital to current national interests and taxpayer supported budgets to allow it to be so greatly misrepresented. PhaseAcer (talk) 01:55, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

References

The P-51 did not "save" the air war for the US... not by a long shot. The American air brass decided to build up a huge bomber fleet and try to win the war with it. I'm not saying I think this was a good idea, but it was the working plan; the air war changed drastically because the bomber fleets were built and used. Any working fighter could have been used in large numbers to help protect the bombers and overwhelm the enemy air defenses. The P-40 could have been chosen as the sole fighter solution, for instance, despite its middling performance. Versions could have been made with high altitude turbo, with long range drop tanks, etc. If enough P-40s had been built, the enemy would have been suffering terrible attrition, and of course American pilots would have been dying in large numbers. But it could have been a war-winning solution. Don't underestimate the willingness of the American military to win despite the weapon loadout. Binksternet (talk) 03:50, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

A real-life example of the concept I'm trying to illustrate is the P-39 in Soviet service. They received 4,700 P-39s and worked them like crazy. Five of the top ten Soviet aces made the majority of their kills in the P-39, which was a mediocre fighter, slowed rather too much by armor and self-sealing tanks. The most successful fighter aces who ever piloted an American aircraft were Soviets in P-39s and the P-63 successor – many of them outscored American top aces by a factor of five. My argument is that no fighter can be said to have "saved" the war. Binksternet (talk) 19:56, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

I think there are too many confounders to draw such claims out. And phrases like " vital to current national interests and taxpayer supported budgets to allow it to be so greatly misrepresented" makes it sound like you're on a campaign for "The Truth" GraemeLeggett (talk) 11:00, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

Per an example of a confounder. The P-51 replaces P-47 as bomber escort but as the war progresses the quality of German pilots drops. So do you discount 1945 Mustang kills compared to 1943 Thundrbolt kills as it's not like-for-like? GraemeLeggett (talk) 11:12, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

Another confounder, at the start of 1944, the (now largely Mustang) fighter groups of the 8th AF changed operations and swept ahead of bombers rather than escorting them as P-38s and P-47s in 43.GraemeLeggett (talk) 12:07, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

Binkster, I am quoting references about the P-51 combat effectiveness, and the by comparison poor performance of the P-38. From "Development of the P-51 Long Range Escort Fighter", Introduction: "The P51 Mustang saved the USAAF daylight bombing campaign in the ETO from defeat, but it did not appear in combat until slightly more than a year before the war in Europe ended. Had it appeared later, the AAF bombing campaign in the ETO would already have been defeated." This book gives much more information on the desperate state of the American bomber command with the unsustainable bomber losses that the P-47 and P-38 allowed, and that only the P-51 finally brought under control. I gave the stats from "Mustang Designer" above showing the hard combat data that backs this up. You can argue that the quality of German pilots was declining, but that is speculative distraction that does not change the main conclusions of the data. Discussing the possibility of an improved P-40 in this situation is also simply speculative distraction from the key issues, since such a design never existed.

In the 2nd half of WWII, the P-38 was a success against the by then obsolete Zero in the Pacific, if its higher speed was used in diving energy attacks. It did not have that speed advantage in the ETO, as the Bf 109 and Fw 190 were just about as fast, and had surprise advantage with their much lower visibility, as well as maneuverability advantage due to the lower angular (roll) inertia of a single centralized engine compared to two engines stuck out on "moment arms" (the time it takes to get that mass moving is proportional to how far from the center line the mass is positioned). Finally, the P-38 consumed twice the aluminum, steel, fuel, industrial capacity, and maintenance staff as the German light fighters. Those were limited resources for both sides, and the efficiency of usage of those resources (reflected in cost per aircraft and cost per operating hour) are critical issues in a long term war. Looked at from the strategic view, the P-38 was a failure, since the P-51 could do everything the P-38 was intended to do (such as long range escort), and do it better, for half the price and resource usage. In an article presenting the "class" of fighter aircraft, such as the light fighter and heavy fighter articles, these are TOP level issues. They are also totally separate from distracting issues like Russia getting the most from the P-39, or the fact that maybe a rich nation can sometimes afford poor quality and just win by numbers, and we should not let those separate issues muddy the water in presenting key facts as reported in the literature.

Wikipedia has a good policy for how the nuances you guys are referring to are best handled. It says "Wikipedia is not IN the argument, Wikipedia REPORTS the argument." We are not supposed to let nuances and opinion stop us from reporting. The problem we have in this article is that we are either not reporting the argument (such as not quoting strong references and not giving the combat data due to personal PoV that it is somehow inappropriate), or that we not only enter the argument, but do so in a non-neutral way with inaccurate unreferenced statements on critically important points (like just claiming the P-38 was "successful" without references, without data, and without comparison to what standard of success). You can find some coffee table class picture books and blind worship airplane books that play up the P-38. But, the majority view of the literature that actually addresses fighter effectiveness and combat operations research results is that the P-38 was a failure in the ETO compared to the Mustang. If you define the Mustang grade as an "A+" of 100% for combat operations research comparisons, then plane for plane in fighter combat the P-38 was an "F" of 39%, dollar for dollar in fighter combat it was 20%, and dollar for dollar including bomber protection it was less than 10%. The P-38 is an attractive and innovative design, and more effective than some other heavy twin fighters. But compared to the P-51 as a weapon of war, it is an "F-". PhaseAcer (talk) 06:34, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

"Wikipedia is not IN the argument, Wikipedia REPORTS the argument.". That doesn't mean creating the argument from sources, it means reporting what the sources say about the argument? If X says Y and M says N, then you report "X says this and M says that". If Z says X and M take opposite positions then you write "X and M are opposed". And if Wikipedia has a policy, then link to it. GraemeLeggett (talk) 11:10, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

OK, Graeme, here it is: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view

Under the “Impartial Tone” section of this core policy neutrality article: “Wikipedia describes disputes. Wikipedia does not engage in disputes.” However, in this article we totally neglect to describe the gigantic dispute in military procurement concerning light and heavy fighters, both in the WWII era, and in the even more important modern era.

Under the "Achieving Neutrality" section: “As a general rule, do not remove sourced information from the encyclopedia solely on the grounds that it seems biased or you think it constitutes as "fake news". Instead, try to rewrite the passage or section to achieve a more neutral tone.” Despite this, removal of high quality references I bring keeps happening. For example, in the light fighter article I have recently tried three times to include the modern military aviation literature that directly defines the JF-17, F-16, JAS 39 Gripen, and MiG-29 all as “light fighters", and that describes the terms "light fighter" and "lightweight fighter" as equivalent. Each time that material and the supporting references have been deleted without discussion or comment. Similarly, the strong references I have brought on the P-51, Bf 109, Zero, and Bearcat all being lightweight fighters (it is verifiable they were considered so by their own design teams, and by modern references), have all been refused without a single reference to the contrary. Not just rewritten to try to improve the presentation, but refused coverage at all.

And the really big issue, on neutrality as a core policy, given in the lead to the article: “This policy is non-negotiable, and the principles upon which it is based cannot be superseded by other policies or guidelines, NOR BY EDITOR CONSENSUS.” It is bedrock policy that neutrality REQUIRES acknowledging the major views on an issue as described in the references, and consensus specifically cannot be used to block such presentation. However, this core policy is routinely violated in Wikipedia fighter aircraft articles, apparently on the mistaken belief that consensus allows saying just about anything no matter how in violation of the references (such as writing that in the modern era the distinction between light and heavy fighters does not matter), or refused coverage despite what a stack of references say without any countering references. That's why, on this extremely important issue of heavy vs light in the modern era, I brought that truckload of references. It illustrates just how blatantly this policy is being violated, and as a result how flat wrong and in violation of the literature and neutrality this article has been for years. I know you are an expert editor and I appreciate that you are taking the trouble to comment, but what I notice in your recent postings here is a consistent pattern of Straw man comments, instead of directly addressing these core issues on P-38 effectiveness and light vs heavy. PhaseAcer (talk) 19:40, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

Do other nations make a light/heavy distinction; is light/heavy a proxy for the question of cost and numbers of aircraft fielded? As a related element is there currently a dispute on "light vs heavy", or is it now historical? Is it limited to the USA, or have other nations had this conversation? ie is the worldview covered adequately. GraemeLeggett (talk) 12:29, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

There are references to cover the world view, but as there are more high volume production American fighters on both the light and heavy side, there is more literature covering those. PhaseAcer (talk) 21:44, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

The blatant violations that I have removed have all come from PhaseAcer who is trying to rewrite history, to extend backward in time the 1960s/1970s concept of light fighters to encompass WWII. The great mass of references don't do that, but PhaseAcer has hammered his piton into the few that do, and he is hanging on them alone. Binksternet (talk) 15:31, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

Binkster, you seem to have not read the policies on references. Please see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources

Here you can see under "Age Matters" the policy statement: "Especially in scientific and academic fields, older sources may be inaccurate because new information has been brought to light, new theories proposed, or vocabulary changed. In areas like politics or fashion, laws or trends may make older claims incorrect. Be sure to check that older sources have not been superseded, especially if it is likely the new discoveries or developments have occurred in the last few years."

Aircraft design and combat operations research are technical fields. So, in contrast to your claim that using newer sources is "rewriting history", these newer sources by expert authors carry higher weight that older sources. And, the references you refer to that don't discuss the issues of light vs heavy at all are not references on the topic. Newer references that do discuss the topic are not only fair to show material from, but actually mandated to be acknowledged by the Wikipedia policy on neutrality. The neutrality policy is also specifically noted to dominate over the consensus policy. PhaseAcer (talk) 21:38, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

Older references may be closer to the subject and used material that has has since been lost or forgotten. Newer references may have access to sources that weren't available at the time that earlier works were written. Newer references may reuse older sources which are themselves flawed rather than research from scratch. ( I saw an example the other day where a paper was probably cited because of the title of the paper rather than what the paper actually said). A reference needs to be considered in the whole. And that includes considering whether the author is a neutral party observing the issue, or someone who was a partisan of one or other viewpoint. GraemeLeggett (talk) 12:23, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

You are giving false equivalence to a minor viewpoint, voiced by military activists promoting a particular theory. This activism has not changed the major, mainstream view that the the US did not create fighters of the "light fighter" designation during WWII. As such, your proposal runs afoul of neutrality. Time to stop beating the dead horse. Binksternet (talk) 01:48, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

Binkster, rejecting references is neither your job nor your right as a Wikipedia editor. Your opinion that the authors are military activists is irrelevant to policy. The specific policy under the "Achieving Neutrality" section of the main neutrality article is: “As a general rule, do not remove sourced information from the encyclopedia solely on the grounds that it seems biased or you think it constitutes as "fake news". Instead, try to rewrite the passage or section to achieve a more neutral tone.” I am bringing a stack of half a dozen valid references by career professionals that say the very designers of the P-51, Zero, Bf 109, and Bearcat all considered their planes to be lightweights, and modern literature that agrees. I am bringing a 4X larger stack that completely debunks the unreferenced claim that light vs heavy in the modern era does not matter. Your job as an editor is to report these references, not suppress them. If do not agree with the references, you have the option to bring counter-references and report them also, properly weighted and compared. So far you have not been able to quote a single counter-reference. PhaseAcer (talk) 04:24, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

If you would like to arbitrate whether you have the right to replace references with your opinion, I would be happy to do so. Since the policy is that neutrality is based on verifiable references, and you have NO references, and that this policy outweighs even consensus, it seems your case is pretty weak. PhaseAcer (talk) 04:24, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

Anybody who says that the designers of America's frontline fighters of WWII were considering them to be lightweight fighters is fabricating their own version of reality. Nothing like that happened. As sensible, thinking humans, we choose to ignore or at least greatly downplay the nonsense spewed by activists who are clearly trying to give their point of view more gravity by having it extend fictionally back in time. It's ridiculous arguing this point with you, as you are firmly in their camp. If you continue to rob the community of energy and time like you have been, you may be blocked for disruption. Binksternet (talk) 06:14, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

Binkster, I am going to continue to build the references, and then I am going to report those references. Those references are not fringe material, they are the deeply considered writings of respected career professionals, and sometimes of the air combat scientists and designers that are giants in the fighter design field. I will write according to policy. The policy on material that is disputed among references is “Wikipedia describes disputes. Wikipedia does not engage in disputes.” If you have different references that amount to even a significant minority view that actually does dispute the references I will show, then of course I support "describing the dispute". If you can find such references, then policy would require presenting both sides in proper proportion. But at this point, you are gravely out of policy with your non-neutrality and reference suppression, without a single reference to back you.

If you continue to remove well referenced material, and continue to resort to tactics like threatening to block me as an editor when I have done nothing but bring high quality well referenced material according to policy, then I will be filing for arbitration. If anyone gets blocked, I don't think it will be me. PhaseAcer (talk) 15:58, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

Time to break and scale back the language (Consider WP:INTIM). And think about Wikipedia:Third_opinion before Admin or Arb activities. GraemeLeggett (talk) 16:38, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

WWII Lightweight Fighter References

I post this on both the light fighter and heavy fighter talk pages as the issues involved are deeply intertwined.

It was previously claimed by several editors that the set of a half dozen references I brought (with zero counter-references) reporting highly efficient single engine WWII prop fighters as generally being “lightweight fighters” was inadequate to accept that designation. These references included clear reports that the designers of the Zero, Bf 109, P-51, and Bearcat considered them to be lightweight fighters (that was their design goal). They also included professional level later interpretation of them being lightweight fighters in the modern strategic sense of seeking to meet the fighter effectiveness criteria’s top three goals of surprise (small and hard to see), numbers (low cost enabled by small size), and maneuverability (also enhanced by small size).

I therefore bring a much larger set of references below on this topic. I apologize for the long post, but it is necessary to show these references, briefly mention what they say, and to outline a key technical point below in the definition of lightweight over time. The resistance among some editors to key issues of light vs heavy is such that it seems the point can only be made with these truckloads of references. The non-neutrality and hostility on the issue are so severe that I have several times been threatened with blockage as an editor for bringing the references on the subject that disagree with previous unreferenced and generally incorrect opinion. Since neutrality by definition means impartial presentation of references (which takes precedence even over consensus), here are the references to do so. Take the trouble to impartially read the below, and it will be clear that the overwhelming majority view of the literature is that the efficient single engine fighters of WWII are all lightweight fighters by definition. (To the editors who will immediately complain “Wall of words!”, if you don’t want the words, don’t refuse 6 references so that I have to come back with 23 and explain them).

This particular truckload is the result of surveying at least 100 references covering WWII fighters. Most references do not clearly address the weight and fighter effectiveness issues, so they are not references on the issue. These over 20 references do, and they are thus valid references. Some are technical and go into detail, written by career professionals, while others provide colloquial description to show that the equivalent terms “light fighter” and “lightweight fighter” are commonly applied to this class of fighters.

Direct references as light fighters or lightweight fighters (the same thing in the literature, for which I will stack up references if demanded) are reported on the Zero, Hurricane, Spitfire, Bf 109, Fw 190, Yak-3, P-40, F8F Bearcat, and P-51. This covers such a wide range of “work horse” fighters built in high volume from before the war to the end of the war and beyond that no other conclusion can be drawn than except that in the eyes of the literature the entire class of efficient single engine fighters optimized for the air to air role are lightweight fighters. The only exceptions as single engine fighters would be those at the high end of the single engine weight range, such as the Hellcat, P-47, and Corsair (which should logically be called middleweights, but which the literature neglects to do). Even the P-47 started life as an intentionally lightweight fighter according to its initial development contract, and the Hellcat was later redesigned into the lightweight Bearcat.

There is a technical point to mention here that strongly affects the definition and understanding of “lightweight”. Generally, the references describe lightweight fighters by example and by rather long descriptions of the fighter effectiveness criteria that leads to smaller fighters being more effective. It can be simplified down to mean no heavier (and thus no more expensive) than needed to perform the mission. The practical fighters described as light or lightweight (not impractical very light interceptors) by the references have about a two to one weight range over the course of the war. That raises the question of why such a large range for one class of WWII fighters. The answer is the mission expansion and the continual upward speed of fighters during WWII. At the beginning of the war, the top speed of fighters was about 330-360 mph. At the end of the war, it was about 400 to 450 mph. The drag and required engine power are going up with the square of the speed ratio, so the structural weight to withstand the drag (and maneuver without tearing the wings off) and the engine weight (to provide the power) are basically also going up with square of fractional speed increase. For example, using the range of top speeds, note (450/330)^2 = 1.86. This by itself explains most of the difference, with the remainder being the armor protection for the pilot, self-sealing gas tanks, extra structure for high fuel fraction for escort duty (P-51), and heavier armament that came to be considered as “mission essential” as the war progressed (such armor and self-sealing tanks were not present in the early versions of the Zero, Spitfire, and Bf 109). There is also variation with technology. For example, the P-51H got faster and lighter than the P-51D, which was due to simultaneous reduction of load factors (changing the definition of the mission) and water/alcohol injection jumping its power from 1380HP to temporarily 2200HP where its new top speed of 487mph was measured (and not requiring an increase in engine weight). But, except for such technology jumps, what is “lightweight” changes over time basically in proportion to the square of speed increase and then linearly with pounds added or subtracted with mission change.

Now the references showing that efficient single engine WWII fighters really are lightweights in the eyes of their designers and the literature may be given. First literature favoring this position (over 20 references) is presented, followed by the only 2 (very brief) references I could find that use the term “standard” fighter in reference to efficient single engine WWII fighters. Both of these references can only be interpreted to indicate that standard IS lightweight rather than being any different. I find only one reference that indicates that any of the efficient single engine fighters are anything other than lightweight, and it is a self-published on-line article that colloquially describes the Fw 190 as a small fighter but not exactly a lightweight.

Literature Indicating Efficient Single Engine WWII Fighters as Lightweights

1. “Development of the P-51 Long Range Escort Fighter”, Paul Ludwig, Classic Publications, 2003. The author, a former U.S. Navy pilot, does a tremendous research job, performing interviews with many of the surviving designers, and tracking down key documents. This research is so detailed as to include phone transcripts of general officer conversations on this subject.

P. 34: “Breaking away from large and heavy designs, Edgar Schmued led America and perhaps the world during WWII in creating the concept of the lightweight fighter”.

P. 34-35: “Schmued’s XP-51 was one of the first aircraft designed from the start to making light weight a modern goal in fighter design”.

Schmued is probably given excessive innovator credit in the above two quotes, since many other designers of the WWII timeframe clearly understood and designed to achieve lightweight fighter virtues. But, the quotes do show that Schmued, among many others, did understand the lightweight fighter concept, and applied it to the P-51. He so much applied it that further weight reductions were a theme throughout the entire P-51 program, and he then continued it as chief designer of the F-86 and F-5.

P. 54: The USAAF was committed to the heavy P-38 and P-47, as the senior leadership did not believe small fighters could perform long range bomber escort. “The slim little Mustang eventually took over the job only after all other possible fighter alternative were first given a chance.”

P. 133: The issue of a lightweight making better use of critical resources was well understood by USAAF leadership and key decision makers. For example, here Col. (later Maj. Gen) Benjamin Chidlaw, chief of the experimental engineering branch, in evaluating production priority of the lightweight P-51 and the heavyweight P-38, reports in June 1943 to his commanders as follows: “...at first glance from a comparison of dollars, man-hours, fuel used, materials, versus performance, it might seem uneconomical to go on building P-38’s as against P-51’s on a STRICTLY FIGHTER BASIS.” But, knowing the generals loved the P-38, he continued “On the other hand, from a fighter-bomber-torpedo-photographic reconnaissance general utility stand point, the P-38 comes close to being the best all-around airplane we have.” Interestingly, Chidlaw thought the P-51 needed to be even lighter, which would come in a later model.

This shows that the P-51 was understood in 1943 by USAAC LEADERSHIP to deliver the key lightweight fighter STRATEGIC advantage of best (minimum) RESOURCE USAGE for the fighter mission, but the USAAF was stuck in Groupthink in believing that a larger, more general-purpose plane was justified in consuming twice the resources. This was a terrible error for the ETO bomber campaign, only corrected when the United States was on the verge of stopping the bomber campaign due to unsustainable losses. The lightweight P-51 then saved the day (if this is further disputed, I will provide a larger stack of references directly on that point).

P. 162: The P-38 could not meet production demands, and there were no P-38’s in the ETO until Oct. 1943. Production was then starting to approach demand, but earlier fielding of the Mustang consuming half the resources could have met demand much faster. By Dec 1943, the P-51 and P-38 were together performing bomber escort.

P. 155: At 56% power (bomber escort cruise), the light and efficient Mustang burned only 51 gallons per hour. The P-38 burned 120 gallons per hour (p. 186).

2. “Mustang Designer: Edgar Schmued and the P-51”, by Ray Wagner, Orion Books, 1990.

P. 127: “Another advantage of the P-51 was its relatively low cost. Air Force data indicates an average unit cost in 1945 of $50,985, compared to $83,000 for the P-47, and $97,147 for the P-38”. After surprise value, the next key advantage for lightweight fighters is low cost allowing higher numbers. The classic and key number comes to the top here: Efficient single engine lightweights do the job better plane for plane, at HALF the cost. This is of GIGANTIC strategic significance, the weightiest issue there is in the subject of light and heavy fighters.

P. 133: “It is clear the Mustang enabled the air battle over Germany to be won.” You want more, you’ll get a wall of words on this also.

P. 133: “Flying 213,872 sorties and losing 2520 planes in combat, Mustangs claimed 4950 aircraft destroyed in the air and 4131 on the ground. Thunderbolts flew 423,435 sorties, lost 3077 in combat, and claimed 3082 destroyed in the air and 3202 on the ground. Lightnings flew 129,849 sorties, lost 1758 in combat, and claimed 1771 destroyed in the air and 749 on the ground.”

The P-51 scored 0.023 kills per sortie, the P-38 scored 0.014 kills per sortie, and the P-47 scored 0.0073 kills per sortie. The Mustang enemy aircraft destroyed to loss ratio was 3.6 to 1. The P-47 achieved 2.0 to 1, and the P-38 scored 1.4 to 1. The P-51 scored 61% more kills in the air and 34% more kills on the ground than the P-47, while flying only 51% of the total sorties. The P-51 scored 180% more kills in the air and 552% more kills on the ground than the P-38, while flying only 65% more sorties. On a kills per budget basis the P-51 greatly exceeded these heavier fighters, as it was 60% the cost per plane of the P-47 and 53% the cost of the P-38. The per dollar efficiency of the Mustang against German fighters was 4.9X that of the P-38, and if you count in the value of protecting the bombers much better, it had to exceed 10X. Greater effectiveness for half the price is THE key issue of light vs heavy, both in WWII and ever since.

Note also that the P-51 was basically in service in the ETO for almost the same time as the P-38. Yet, if flew 65% more sorties, reflecting the lower cost and higher reliability and thus higher sortie generation rates of a lightweight single engine fighter.

That the light weight advantages of the P-51 were understood and valued resulted in a weight reduction program for it that is described in detail in Chapter 6 pp. 138-147. P. 140: General Hap Arnold saw chief P-51 designer Ed Schmued’s report on how British aircraft were lighter (they had lighter load factors). He then approved a program to further lighten the P-51. The direct quote from chief engineer Ed Schmued: “That was our go-ahead to build the P-51F. It was a marvelous exercise for us because we already had an airplane that was VERY, VERY LIGHT. Now by using some the British load factors and design requirements and our design improvements, we actually whittled 600 lbs off the empty weight of the airplane, and what an airplane would possibly have built.” (the P-51F did not enter production).

P. 143: The production lighter weight Mustang became the P-51H. Its empty weight was a very light 6586 lbs. Contracted production was for 1000, and 500 had been built when the war ended and production was terminated.

The point of explaining the weight reduction program on the Mustang is how clearly it illustrates that the virtues of light weight here dominated over the almost universal trend for fighters to gain weight in later versions. They knew they had a great lightweight fighter, and they wanted to make it even lighter. That the USAAF leadership understood this clearly is shown by the fact that they funded the development program, and then issued a large contract for production on the strategic plan that the P-51H was to supplement the P-51D as the bomber escort fighter for the final defeat of Japan. Not the P-38, even though it was doing well against the obsolete Zero late in the war, but the P-51D and the P-51H.

3. “The Pentagon Paradox: The Development of the F-18 Hornet”, James Stevenson, Naval Institute Press, 1993. This book is devoted to the issue of light vs heavy, both in the modern age and with considerable background going back to WWII, and is deeply researched. The author is a career military aviation journalist, and knows everyone in the business. This authoritative and very detailed book is the summary of his lifework through 1993.

P. 33: “American fighter pilots have a saying, “first sight wins the fight”. History shows that 65% to 85% of the pilots never saw the aircraft that shot them down. As the former editor of the “Topgun Journal”, the author asked hundreds of pilots over a six-year period what single advantage they would like to have, that is, longer-range missile, more guns, better maneuverability, etc. To a pilot they all said, “the first sighting”.” This illustrates the extreme importance of being small, which cuts visual detection range approximately in half. This has been true throughout the history of air combat.

P. 44: The actual exchange ratio of the USAAF in the Pacific against Japan was 1.96 to 1.

P. 62: “Fighter aircraft like the P-51 Mustang, F8F Bearcat, and F-16 Falcon are examples of fighters that are lighter than their contemporaries (for the mission), are less expensive, and have greater performance. Because fighter aircraft of lower weight can have increased performance, can cost less, and can create a larger force (per budget), these three benefits are embodied in the term “lightweight fighter”.”

P. 63: “The arguments for lightweight fighters—lower cost, greater performance, and increased numbers, were as relevant in World War II as they are today. Consequently, on the eve of World War II both the Army and the Navy were actively investigating the benefits of lightweight fighters.”

P. 66: “The benefits of the lightweight fighter concept were not lost on the designer of the P-51, Ed Schmued.”

P. 66-67: “Another lightweight fighter success story belongs to the U.S. Navy with the development during WWII of the Grumman Bearcat, which was designed to fly from the evolving smaller aircraft carriers.”

P. 68: Leroy Grumman, founder of Grumman Aircraft Engineering, understood the benefits of lightweight fighters. “He penned his thoughts (July 18, 1943) to his chief designer, W.T. Schwendler. Grumman wanted to see if his idea for putting an F4F Wildcat-sized body around the F6F’s Hellcat’s engine was feasible (which also makes the direct argument for the Wildcat as another lightweight fighter). He assumed that the new airplane would have greater performance than the F6F (the Hellcat). Grumman’s memo to Schwendler is the genesis of the F8F Bearcat. His memo records both the Navy’s and Grumman’s rationale for building a lightweight fighter.” This memo is reprinted in its entirety on pages 68-70.

P. 70: “The Bearcat (about the same weight and speed as the Mustang) represented the quintessential lightweight fighter concept. It was a lighter airframe around an existing engine, resulting in improvements in almost all performance parameters”.

P. 70: “The U.S. Navy resorted to lightweight fighter design under the pressures of war, yet resisted lightweight fighters in peacetime.” This is a common theme in fighter procurement. The pressure of war is often the factor that forces acceptance of lightweight fighter virtues. This happened with the initial failure of the American bomber campaign in the ETO, and happened again due to Vietnam, which forced enough acceptance of the need for lightweight fighters that the F-16 was eventually procured after a hard fight.

4. “Bf 109: Versions B-E”, by Roy Cross and Gerald Scarborough, Patrick Stephens London, 1972. This book is a very detailed study of the design and combat history of the Bf 109.

Pages 7-8: “The 109 apparently was not designed to accept wing armament at all, and it seems fair to say that despite wing strengthening this omission proved to be a limiting factor late in the life of the aircraft, although no criticism of the firm is implied since the armament (two synchronized machine guns, plus the possibility of a third in unit with the engine) was specified by the RLM. This modest firepower was consistent with their requirement for a LIGHTWEIGHT high-speed interceptor with a ceiling of nearly 33,000 ft.” Just enough armament and no more is a classic lightweight fighter design criterion. This page goes further in explaining the manufacturing virtues of the Bf 109, another typical lightweight fighter feature.

P. 56: “Its simplicity and economy of construction was a by-product of its original inception as a LIGHTWEIGHT fighter, but it certainly made possible the MANUFACTURE of the various models in total NUMBERS of one type unprecedented to this day...” This further confirms the Bf 109 as a light fighter not only by direct statement, but by capturing the STRATEGIC lightweight fighter concept of simple and low-cost construction that makes best use of resources and generates a NUMBERS advantage. The Bf 109 was produced in greater numbers than any fighter in history, and this was due to its pure light fighter design. It did a terrific job for minimum cost and resource consumption.

P. 56: “Starting with the engine cowling, Messerchmitt made a special point thoughout 109 developement to provide total and easy access to the power plant and fuselage guns for rapid maintenance in the field”. Further details are then provided on this additional key point of a lightweight fighter—low cost maintenance and high sortie rate.

5. “Zero: Combat & Development History of Japan’s Legendary Mitsubishi A6M Zero Fighter”, Robert C. Mikesh, Motor Books International, 1994, Foreword by Zero Ace Saburo Sakai (leading surviving Japanese Ace).

The Zero chief designer was Jiro Horikoshi, a man of similar talent and lightweight fighter understanding to the chief designers of the Spitfire, Bf 109, and P-51.

P. 15: “EVERY weight-saving measure was taken. Engineers concluded that even 90-110 lbs saved could affect the ultimate success in an air engagement. Horikoshi said, “The margin of 100lbs between two opposing fighters was considered comparable to the difference between a veteran pilot and an unskilled novice. The fighter pilots compared themselves to the old Kendo (Japanese fencing) champions, and asked for fighters with the quality of the Japanese master craftsman’s Japanese sword. As a result of our pilots’ figurative demand for the blades and arts of the old masters, the Japanese fighter planes were the LIGHTEST IN WEIGHT and amongst the most maneuverable in the world.”

There is no other way to interpret the above than the Zero being an extreme example of a lightweight fighter. It was in fact the lightest major fighter of the war, even lighter than the similar very minimalist Bf 109.

P. 16: Extreme requirements were placed on the Zero in terms of maneuverability and endurance.

P. 17: The initially available engines were the 875HP Zuisei 13, and the 1200HP Kinsei 46. The Kinsei engine would result in a fighter about 400 lbs lighter than the small American F4F Wildcat, but even this was “considered to be far to heavy, so the Kensei 46 was dropped from consideration”. The 950 HP Sakae 12, almost identical in weight to the 875HP Zuisei 13, would soon get the job.

Pages. 18-19: These pages go into detail on the extreme design measures taken to save structural weight. These included new materials and structural methods, along with lightweight armament, the classic lightweight fighter design choice to get maximum combat value per plane and per budget.

P. 21: “With regards to the aforementioned twin-engine and interceptor-type fighters, it is interesting to note that that a year later (1938) Nakajima was charged by the Navy to develop a 13-Shi twin engine twin-barette escort fighter with long range, which became the J1N1 Irving. It was Horikoshi, after finishing the design of the 12-Shi Zero Fighter, who was tasked to design the J2M1 Jack as a high speed interceptor. Interestingly, the design requirements for both these fighters were initially met by the Zero.”

It is more than just “interesting”. Here we note that Japan with these twin-engine fighters fell into the same mistake that the United States made with the P-38 and that Germany made with the Bf 110. In each case a heavy fighter was developed consuming two of the same engines that could be used to power a superior lightweight single engine fighter. How gigantic this mistake was became crystal clear once the aircraft entered combat.

P. 21: “Japanese aircraft engine development was usually one generation behind that of the Western world. Japanese designers became accustomed to trying to a achieve a performance comparable to Western designs utilizing less powerful engines. This meant HAVING TO DISPENSE WITH ALL BUT ESSENTIAL ELEMENTS OF THE DESIGN AND RELATED ACCESSORIES, while designing to the limit of the aircraft capacity.” This is the core of the lightweight fighter concept. “The Zero, more than any other airplane, epitomized this philosophy and is the best example of how successful it could be when all the conditions were right.”

6. https://nationalinterest.org/blog/buzz/wildcat-vs-zero-how-america%E2%80%99s-naval-aviators-held-their-own-against-japan%E2%80%99s-superior

“Designer Jiro Horikoshi maximized the Zero’s performance by reducing airframe weight to an unprecedented degree by cutting armor protection and employing an “extra super” duralumin alloy. Combined with an 840-horsepower Sakae 12 radial engine, the A6M2 Type Zero could attain speeds of 346 miles per hour, while exhibiting extraordinary maneuverability and high rates of climb.”

7. “Fighter Facts and Fallacies”, John Lee (Assistant Director of Research, United Aircraft Corporation), William Morrow and Company, 1942. This early WWII reference is a technical professional summary of the key fighter design issues and trade-offs, with all of Chapter 3 extolling low weight and high efficiency pages 30-35. Page 33 notes the effect of weight on cost. Smallest size for the specialized mission is noted several times as a key design goal. The issues were fully understood before and during WWII.

8. “Flying Legends: A Photographic Study of the Great Piston Combat Aircraft of WWII”, by John M. Dibbs, 1998, MBI Publishing, Foreward by Wg Cdr Geoffey Page DSO OBE DFC, Intro by Stephen Grey & Cmdr Alex Vraciu USN. Though this book would at first glance look like a picture book due to its extensive photography, its text is surprisingly strategy and design oriented, with detailed discussions of configuration issues like weight, range, armament, and agility.

P. III Introduction: The Spitfire was “a viceless LITTLE fighter”.

P. 15: The Spitfire had a “light weight airframe” that was from its original design “a pilot’s airplane” and “receptive to the pilots touch” despite later growth in weight, power, and mission.

P. 55: The P-40 was derived from the P-36A lightweight fighter.

P. 55: The P-40N final version was “a drastically lightened” sub-type. (like the P-51, it was recognized that these lightweight fighters would benefit from getting even lighter).

P. 145: The lower power of the Zero engine led to engineers’ straining to design the aircraft to be “as light as possible”. There is no other interpretation possible than the Zero being a lightweight fighter.

P. 145: Even after 1943, “The Zero remained a feared and worthy opponent DUE TO ITS LIGHT WEIGHT—its main rival, the Hellcat, was twice as heavy!” It was actually 2.5X as heavy.

P. 147 on the P-47: “That the Jug, as it soon came to be called, proved such a weighty aircraft is rather ironic, for the original P-47, designed by Alexander Kartveli, was build to meet a 1040 AAC requirement for a LIGHTWEIGHT interceptor, similar in SIZE and stature to the SPITFIRE and Bf 109. The USAAF leadership considered the Spitfire and Bf 109 to be lightweight fighters.

P. 171 on the Bf 109, it was a “small fighter”, and on P181, so small it had “a claustrophobic cockpit”. That tiny plane with a tiny cockpit well served the by far highest scoring aces in history, several with over 300 kills each, and many over 200 kills.

9. “Luffwaffe Fighters and Bombers in the Battle of Britain”, Chris Goss, Stackpole Books, 2000.

P. 9: Just before the Battle of Britain, “The Luftwaffe had already seen shortfalls in the EFFECTIVENESS of their twin-engine fighter (the Bf 110). They were soon to see how much harder it would be facing an opponent with far superior (single engine) fighters.”

10. “Comparing the Effectiveness of Air-to-Air Fighters: F-16 to F-18”, Pierre Sprey, 1982.

P. 15: “The P-38 was the least successful of these escort fighters; due to high losses and a poor kill record, by the spring of 1944 General Doolittle had decided to begin replacing them with P-51’s. The 17,500 lb P-38, despite its excellent 360 mph cruise speed and 400 mph top speed, was too large and too visible, too inferior in maximum g, and had both poor roll rate and poor dive acceleration. In addition, its two engines proved to be mostly a survivability handicap; if either one was hit over Germany, the aircraft was likely to be lost due to either fire or enemy fighters downing the straggler.”

P. 17: The WWII German single engine fighters were high performance LIGHT fighters.

P. 17: “The 10,100 pound P-51D (loaded) was the most successful of the long range fighters: it was not much larger than the Focke-Wulf 190A and Messerschmitt 109G, had a much better 360 mph cruise and 437 mph top speed, had better dive acceleration, could equal or out-turn the German fighters, and could match their roll performance.”

11. http://pogoarchives.org/labyrinth/11/03.pdf

“Reversing the Decay of American Air Power”, by Pierre Sprey and USAF Col. Robert Dilger, 2008.

P. 14: “The European war was fought by the United States primarily with three fighters, the P-38, P47 and the P-51. All three were developed after the World War II build-up started in late 1937. The P-38 and the P-47 failed as high-altitude dogfighters. Eventually the P-38 was withdrawn from Europe as a fighter, while it did continue in other roles. The P-47 was pulled from the bomber-escort role and then employed on close support and interdiction ground-attack missions. It failed as a high altitude, long-range dogfighter but became pre-eminent in the close support and interdiction ground-attack missions.”

P. 14: “The P-51 was initially developed as a private venture independent of the Army Air Force’s development bureaucracy. They favored the larger, less maneuverable and more expensive P-47 and P-38. After the P-51 was mated with the Rolls-Royce Merlin engine, license-built in the United States (a modification strongly opposed by the Army Air Force leadership), it became perhaps the best fighter aircraft in any World War II theater. Over 15,000 P-51s were ultimately procured, most of them with the Merlin engine. Interestingly, it was also the SMALLEST and least expensive U.S. fighter (escort fighter) – yet it had the longest range: 600 miles, compared to only 375 miles for the larger P-47.”

P. 15: “The P-51 changed the equation. The bombers acted as a sacrificial goat that attracted the Luftwaffe day fighters. The escort P-51s engaged the Luftwaffe fighters and with their numerical advantage, a superb performing aircraft, and pilots with far more training hours, they prevailed. It was P-51s that won air superiority over Germany just shortly before D-Day, which was the critical precursor necessary for a successful D-Day invasion.”

P. 6-9: The presentation of why Germany lost the Battle of Britain is very enlightening to why the United States was initially losing the air war over Germany 3 years later. England lost about 0.5 fighter pilots for each of their own fighters shot down (half the shoot down victims survived to fight again, now wiser in the ways of combat). The Germans lost all theirs. But even far more important was that England was trading low cost single engine lightweight fighters for expensive German bombers. Each bomber was over twice as expensive as a fighter, with a large crew. When the United States began its bomber campaign over Germany, each heavy bomber lost was about 6X as expensive as a low-cost German light fighter, with a 10-man crew. When bomber losses exceed even 5% per sortie, this loss becomes unbearable.

12. https://www.airspacemag.com/military-aviation/thunderjet-307269/ “Air and Space Magazine”, Aug. 2013. Directly states that Spitfires and Hurricanes are lightweight fighters.

13. https://apnews.com/c33c551582be4b479161257208e96812 , also at

https://www.koin.com/news/international/restored-world-war-ii-spitfire-begins-round-the-world-trip/

This Aug. 2019 Spitfire article says: “The lightweight fighter plane helped defeat the German air force in the Battle of Britain and the Spitfire has become an icon of World War II.”

14. https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/spitfire-norway-mountain-great-escape-pilot-found-second-world-war-nazi-raf-espionage-alastair-gunn-a8646841.html

Nov. 2018 article: Spitfires used for reconnaissance described as “ultra-lightweight fighters”.

15. https://www.chuckhawks.com/best_fighter_planes.htm

Bf 109 and Yak-3 were as small and lightweight as possible with powerful V-12 engines similar to the Allison and the Merlin.

16. https://www.militaryfactory.com/aircraft/detail.asp?aircraft_id=1949

Curtiss XP-53 lightweight fighter proposal was for an upgrade to the P-40. There were two prototypes. Indicates the USAAF leadership and U.S. manufacturer Curtiss considered the P-40 as a lightweight, and were simply seeking a better lightweight. It would be North American Aviation that achieved this key goal in the form of the P-51.

17. https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3839195/A-warplane-graveyard-50-German-Focke-Wulfs-disappeared-WWII-wrapped-sheets-buried-old-Turkish-airport.html

“Daily Mail”, Oct. 14, 2016, English newspaper article reporting the Fw 190 as a lightweight fighter. “The FW-190 was an advanced LIGHTWEIGHT fighter, which was more than a match for the early versions of the legendary Spitfire.”

18- 20. https://www.avgeekery.com/the-ultimate-mustang-north-americans-advanced-lightweight-p-51h/ http://www.mustangsmustangs.com/p-51/variants/prototype http://www.joebaugher.com/usaf_fighters/p51_13.html Lightweight P-51H. The USAAF leadership and North American were so locked in to the P-51 being a lightweight fighter that they energetically pursued making it even lighter.

21. https://www.militaryfactory.com/aircraft/detail.asp?aircraft_id=790

Light fighters like the XP-57 and XP-77 are defined here as “VERY LIGHT” fighters, not the definition of “light fighters” that many editors have wanted to assume without references. There is NO literature to support only these very light fighters being defined as “light fighters” in the sense used in the references and thus in Wikipedia articles, while there is a large body of literature that efficient single engine WWII fighters are all lightweight fighters.

22. https://www.nationalreview.com/2017/03/f-35-replacement-f-45-mustang-ii-fighter-simple-lightweight/

Proposal for a 21st century light fighter that is the modern-day strategic equivalent of the P-51. It would be called the “Mustang II”. To be even smaller and cheaper than the Gripen.

“To keep down costs and improve agility, our modern Mustang will be a single-engine warplane. Of course, the F-45 will have all the air-to-air capabilities that the Gripen features in addition to what the F-35 is supposed to sport, including sensor fusion, networked sensors, helmet-cued missile launching, and lock-on-after-launch missiles.”

Just another data point to show how the modern literature views the P-51 as a lightweight fighter. This is a consistent theme.

23. “Military Reform: The High-Tech Debate in Tactical Air Forces”, Col. (later 4-star general) Walter Kross, National Defense University Press, 1985. This book is basically the general’s master degree thesis in book form. Kross tries to present both sides of the light vs heavy debate, ultimately coming down on the heavy side, while almost accidentally making a checkmate argument in favor of lightweights (see below final quote).

P. 47: P-51 as a cheap winner, vs. P-38 as an expensive loser, is a military reformer position.

P. 94: “Reformer cite the P-38 as an expensive loser and the P-51 as a cheap winner in WWII. In fact, both planes were winners. The leading US air aces of all time achieved their kills in the P-38 in the Pacific Theater.” True, but misleading. The general neglects to mention the P-38’s terrible performance in Europe, where it almost lost the air war by being unable to prevent Germany trading cheap lightweight fighters for expensive heavy bombers. He also fails to note that the even longer-range P-51 could and did do all that the P-38 did in the Pacific, for half the price. The only reason P-51 aces in the Pacific did not achieve as high a kill count as the P-38 aces is that they were there for much less time, since the P-51 was utilized almost totally over Germany. Only after the fall of Germany were they moved to the Pacific, where they got only a few months in action before the war ended. The USAAC final leadership position of the relative value of the P-38 and P-51 is ultimately to strongly favor the P-51, since the main escort plan was to use the P-51D and the new and even lighter P-51H for the B-29 escort mission to finally defeat Japan. Only the atomic bomb prevented that from happening.

P. 96: “In Europe, the P-51 did not appear in sufficient numbers until 1944, when the newer technology of the Merlin engine gave the P-51D the performance and range to escort Allied bombers to the heart of Germany. By contrast, the P-38’s engines were never upgraded because the Army recognized that superior performance in the European air-land theater be achieved MORE CHEAPLY by applying the newer engine technology to large numbers of single engine P-51’s.” Partly false, partly true, with the true part being of critical importance. The Merlin was not newer than the Allison, just better. And the reason the P-51 was late to the party was that USAAC leadership was initially prejudiced against the P-51 for being small, for being initially kicked-off by the British, and for having a British engine, and deliberately held it back (multiple sources, Paul Ludwig in particular). But, the general here completely makes the point favoring lightweight fighters, which is don’t waste good engines in expensive twin engine fighters when a single engine lightweight fighter will do the job better plane for plane, and you can have twice as many of them. THAT IS THE MAIN ISSUE, proven with both the P-38 and the Bf 110.

PhaseAcer (talk) 23:07, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

“Standard” Fighters

Binkster has made the claim that efficient WWII single engine fighters are not lightweight fighters, and are instead “standard” fighters that are distinct from lightweight fighters. There is no literature to support Binker’s claim, even as a minority view. Instead, the term “standard” is occasionally (though rarely) used in the literature to mean “standardized”, as in adopted in volume. Such fighters are almost always lightweight fighters. The only two references located to use the term “standard” are given below.

1. https://www.thoughtco.com/p-51-mustang-2361528

“Following the war, the P-51 was retained as the USAAF's standard, piston-engine fighter.” Here standard means it was the ONLY prop fighter retained in wide service after the war, not that it is different than “lightweight”.

2. “Conquerors of the Air: The Evolution of Aircraft 1903-1945”, Carlo Demand and Heiner Emde, Random House, 1968.

P. 164: “But Japan’s best known combat planes were produced by the Mitsubishi Company, and their A6M “Zeroes” were standard fighters of exceptional performance.”

Here “standard” is used to describe the very lightest major fighter of the war, which cannot be taken any other way than equating these terms. PhaseAcer (talk) 23:07, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

You're still at it, analyzing the sources and making your own synthesis conclusions.

The problem you are having here is that it is a blue sky obviosity to any WWII historian of the air war that the front line fighters of the US were always just that: fighters. Nobody was looking at them the way you are now, with the light fighter ideas of Sprey et al as a defining metric. So none of the literature says stuff like "The P-51 will in the future be compared to or even considered a 'light fighter' by some military activists but we will take the opportunity now to write about how that was not the case in the 1930s or 1940s, just to head off the future controversy." No, we aren't going to be seeing that in the sources. Rather, the sources talk about the P-51 in terms of standard/regular/normal fighter operations. It's ridiculous to ask for contradictory sources when the opponent's debate position is so wrong that nobody has bothered to counter it. Binksternet (talk) 01:02, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

Binkster, I dislike being in this dispute with you, but I am bringing references by the dozens, and you are bringing your opinion. And unfortunately, your unreferenced opinions have sometimes just been dead wrong. For example, in this article you were saying or supporting without references that light vs heavy just does not matter in modern jet combat, when in fact that has been one of the most critically important defense procurement topics for decades, as shown by the two dozen references I listed above. I guess that also seemed "blue sky obvious" to you, but in fact that was a $500 billion dollar article mistake that was in complete defiance of the literature.

On this WWII lightweight fighter issue I am also bringing two dozen references, and can bring more. The references I present include sources from WWII that the DESIGNERS of these efficient single engine fighters, the military officers who specified and procured them, and the companies that built them ALL considered them to be lightweight fighters, and understood lightweight fighter virtues almost identically to how they are understood today. And, your insistence that modern references don't matter is in complete conflict with Wikipedia reference policy (see https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:AGE_MATTERS&redirect=no,) which says there is a HIGHER value to modern references in technical areas. The past is set in stone, but our understanding of it is not.

I believe I may know what at least part of the problem is here (two issues). First, you have probably been reading about fighter aviation and WWII history all your life, as I have been doing also, and you may think (like I used to) that you are well versed in the subject. But, you seem not to have read the specific material on fighter configuration design and its strong effect on fighter combat effectiveness. Ten years ago, I did not appreciate this material myself, but then I read one of the Boyd books and started pursuing it, and it has been a huge upgrade to my practical understanding of the subject. If you would put some time in reading some of those references (like Sprey's report), you would find they are outstanding and enlightening sources.

Second, the crux of your argument hinges on the definitions of "lightweight" and "normal". You appear to very firmly think lightweight means ONLY specialized VERY lightweight fighters like the failed jockey fighters. But, there is no literature to support that. Instead, the literature consistently presents small, efficient, and NORMAL mostly single engine fighters as lightweight fighters ALSO. And, it presents it that way from WWII to now. Check the references I show above, and you will see.

The evidence is stacked so high here that I believe it will prove impossible to generate even a minority view that differs. I have reported everything I have found that could even remotely support your view, and it just is not there. Don't you think, based upon this mountain of evidence that just keeps getting higher and that is in fact both true and important, that it is time to follow policy and agree to these references being presented? PhaseAcer (talk) 07:33, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

I never said that light vs heavy was not important in the jet age. My only beef with you is about WWII aircraft being falsely labeled with terms from two decades later.

This reminds me of the pseudoscience article where the mainstream literature has very little contradiction of pseudoscientific claims because the mainstream science people who could easily write against those claims have dismissed them as nonsense, choosing for the most part to avoid writing about them. After thorough discussion and a decision by ArbCom, the various articles talking about pseudoscientific topics tell the reader which claims are considered pseudoscience, even though masses of, for instance, pro-homeopathy literature can be trotted out to stack the case against a very few anti-homeopathy pro-science sources. The larger stack of pro-pseudoscience literature was seen as unable to overthrow the fewer scientific sources – trying to weigh the two camps by quantity was seen as a false equivalence.

Ahistorical re-imagining of the past is the same stuff. Nobody ever called a WWII frontline fighter a "light fighter" until a small band of military activists came along to try and rewrite history in their favor. Binksternet (talk) 13:45, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

I think that is a little unfair. One thing I am finding is that different eras talk about the same machines in different ways. A "destroyer" to one generation may be a "heavy fighter" to another and a "strategic fighter" to a third. Also, the design class and the successful operational role are not always the same thing and it is not always obvious which some commentator might (rightly or, sometimes, wrongly) have in mind. It is absolutely not Wikipedia's job to pick sides, to go "historical" or to go "modern", but to document the changing nomenclature as time passes. In the present case, if subsequent RS refers to a type as a "heavy fighter" we need to acknowledge that and to set it in context against the verifiable historical term. I am afraid that, without an arbcom decision to back one up, claiming "your RS has it wrong, it's not my fault mine doesn't exist" is one of the weakest arguments I have seen on Wikipedia for some time. As one example, the Bf 110 was conceived as a zerstörer (destroyer), while Gunston (Warplanes of the Third Reich) promptly refers to it a few lines further on as the exemplary "strategic fighter", and others describe it as a "heavy fighter". Other respected military historians have referred to the P-51 as the first "strategic fighter" (e.g. in [1] and[2]). We don't ride roughshod over all that and airbrush out the RS we disagree with, we document the verifiable differences of terminology and viewpoint so that readers can find their way through it all. Meanwhile the Caudron C.714 was undoubtedly a light fighter and entered front-line service with two Polish squadrons in France. It was not a success, but it provides a counter-example to the assertion that none were. By contrast the Polikarpov I-16 had all the characteristics of the light fighter but I have not found significant RS (from any era) referring to it as such, so lacking that RS we can not do so either. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 15:25, 21 January 2020 (UTC) [updated 15:43, 21 January 2020 (UTC)]

Counter-references

The only one located is:

1. https://www.fighter-planes.com/info/fw190.htm

“The small Fw 190 was one of the greatest fighters of WWII. Designed by Dr. Kurt Tank, the Fw 190 was built as a sturdy all-round fighter, rather than a lightweight interceptor.” This is a Joe Baugher self-published on-line article. “Small” but “rather than lightweight” would seem to be clumsy wording for Joe meaning to say “Small, but sturdy enough to carry a bit heavier weapons that other lightweight fighters”. This brief statement is the only such one located that would directly contradict any of these efficient single engine fighters being anything but lightweight fighters.

This is a pretty slim reed to say the Fw 190 is not a lightweight, given the other direct references that it is, and the truckload of references above that similar fighters are also lightweights. It is also self-published, though by a reputable guy. I have no objection to noting it in order to provide at least one alternative reference to the clear majority view that efficient single engine WWII fighters are all lightweight fighters. PhaseAcer (talk) 23:07, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

Summary of Efficient WWII Fighters as Lightweights

It is unfortunate that the term “Lightweight fighter” became the industry norm for “low cost, efficient, and effective fighters”. This term arose because of political struggle over money. Fighter manufacturers are like any other company—their primary goal is to make profit. When fighter manufacturers are told to propose a fighter design for a certain number of planes, then because fighters are sold by the pound (like all mechanical equipment), they often propose heavier fighters allowing more profit per plane. The more politically connected a company is, the more likely it is to try selling that kind of high profit fighter. Competitors then may try to win business with fighters that can perform the same mission for lower cost, which then must be lighter. Hence the term “lightweight fighter” was used to contrast these efficient fighters with heavier, more expensive, and generally less effective fighters. Better terms sometimes used in an engineering and military sense are “efficient” fighters or “effective” fighters, but those is not as marketable (though “effective” is used quite a bit), and are not the dominant terms in the literature. So, we are stuck with “lightweight” to describe highly efficient and effective fighters that are generally better war winners than heavy fighters. They win better because of the fighter effectiveness criteria that statistically, smaller fighters with superior surprise (harder to see), numbers (lower cost), and maneuverability (smaller size allows higher agility) will more often come out on top.

The common theme running through the literature, both of the WWII time frame and through later analysis of WWII fighters, is that the more efficient single engine fighters of WWII are ALL lightweight fighters (the only exceptions being the heaviest singles that should logically be called middleweights, but which the literature neglects to do). The designers of the efficient single engine WWII fighters, and the senior officers ordering them, considered them lightweights, and understood the key issue of getting maximum resource efficiency. The literature does not report that only “very light” fighters like the XP-77 experiment are light fighters, and instead reports that practical and efficient singles like the Zero, Spitfire, Bf 109, Yak 3, P-40, and P-51 are all lightweights. As the literature survey given above shows, that is by FAR the dominant majority view of the literature that addresses the issue. There is effectively zero literature that says otherwise. PhaseAcer (talk) 23:07, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

A WP:Wall of text is not the way to go about this.GraemeLeggett (talk) 18:28, 19 January 2020 (UTC)

Graeme, suppression of the references on this issue has gone on for a long time now, with zero counter-references presented despite many requests. This suppression is a neutrality policy violation, which is resulting in several related articles being in strong conflict with the literature and instead expressing incorrect and unreferenced editor opinion on points of major importance. I have already tried the WikiProject Aircraft talk page, to no avail. To be fair to the editors involved, this is a specialty area and they have probably not read the pertinent literature, even though they have been reading about fighter aviation for years. Expanding the references further (above 20 now, more on order) to show just how far out of policy the articles are is the only option other than arbitration that I am aware of. To help the editors partly get up to speed quickly in this area, I have quoted extensively from the pertinent references (both for WWII and for the issue of heavy vs. light in the modern era), at the cost of some space here. That is the best I can do, and deep understanding simply requires reading the focused references (the Sprey effectiveness report, "The Pentagon Paradox" up to page 84, and the Light fighter article would go a long way). If you have some better ideas on how to solve this apparent lack of editor appreciation of the key literature and resulting non-neutrality problem, I would sincerely like to hear them. PhaseAcer (talk) 02:54, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

Editors: “Take it to the talk page”; Also editors: “A lot of text on the talk page is no way to convince people.” I have to go with PhaseAcer on this one. He has the sources to back it up. And why isn’t the “wall of text” the way to go? I understand it’s not pleasant to read, but they were trying to get a point across. MarkFilgerleskiWiki (talk) 23:59, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

This idiotic claim will never stand. WWII frontline fighters were never "light fighters" at the time. Complete and utter nonsense. Binksternet (talk) 13:48, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

Binkster, here is a sampling of the literature. Since you have not been able to show any counter-references, I believe it is sufficiently non-idiotic and extensive to stand up.

P-51: “Breaking away from large and heavy designs, Edgar Schmued led America and perhaps the world during WWII in creating the concept of the lightweight fighter”.

P-51 and F8F Bearcat: P. 62: “Fighter aircraft like the P-51 Mustang, F8F Bearcat, and F-16 Falcon are examples of fighters that are lighter than their contemporaries (for the mission), are less expensive, and have greater performance. Because fighter aircraft of lower weight can have increased performance, can cost less, and can create a larger force (per budget), these three benefits are embodied in the term “lightweight fighter”.”

Bearcat: “The Bearcat represented the quintessential lightweight fighter concept. It was a lighter airframe around an existing engine, resulting in improvements in almost all performance parameters”.

P-40: “The P-40 served honorably around the world as rugged short-legged middle-altitude fighter in the 350 mph high speed category. It could double quite nicely in the light fighter-bomber class.”

XP53: Curtiss XP-53 lightweight fighter proposal for an upgrade to the P-40.

Spitfire and Hurricane: “But after early European combat reports showed that lightweight fighters (such as the Royal Air Force Supermarine Spitfires and Hawker Hurricanes in action at the time) were too easily eliminated from the battle by gunfire, the U.S. Army Air Corps asked for a much heavier fighter–bomber escort in a single airframe.”

Spitfire: The Spitfire had a “light weight airframe” that was from its original design “a pilot’s airplane” and “receptive to the pilots touch” despite later growth in weight, power, and mission.

Spitfire: “The lightweight fighter plane helped defeat the German air force in the Battle of Britain and the Spitfire has become an icon of World War II.”

Spitfire: Reconnaissance versions described as “ultra-lightweight fighters”.

Bf 109: “The 109 apparently was not designed to accept wing armament at all, and it seems fair to say that despite wing strengthening this omission proved to be a limiting factor late in the life of the aircraft, although no criticism of the firm is implied since the armament (two synchronized machine guns, plus the possibility of a third in unit with the engine) was specified by the RLM. This modest firepower was consistent with their requirement for a LIGHTWEIGHT high-speed interceptor with a ceiling of nearly 33,000 ft.”

Bf 109: “Its simplicity and economy of construction was a by-product of its original inception as a lightweight fighter, but it certainly made possible the manufacture of the various models in total numbers of one type unprecedented to this day...”

Fw 190: “The FW-190 was an advanced lightweight fighter, which was more than a match for the early versions of the legendary Spitfire.”

German single engine fighters: The WWII German single engine fighters were high performance LIGHT fighters.

Zero: “Every weight-saving measure was taken. Engineers concluded that even 90-110 lbs saved could affect the ultimate success in an air engagement. Horikoshi said, “The margin of 100lbs between two opposing fighters was considered comparable to the difference between a veteran pilot and an unskilled novice. The fighter pilots compared themselves to the old Kendo (Japanese fencing) champions, and asked for fighters with the quality of the Japanese master craftsman’s Japanese sword. As a result of our pilots’ figurative demand for the blades and arts of the old masters, the Japanese fighter planes were the lightest in weight and amongst the most maneuverable in the world.”

Zero: “Japanese aircraft engine development was usually one generation behind that of the Western world. Japanese designers became accustomed to trying to a achieve a performance comparable to Western designs utilizing less powerful engines. This meant HAVING TO DISPENSE WITH ALL BUT ESSENTIAL ELEMENTS OF THE DESIGN AND RELATED ACCESSORIES, while designing to the limit of the aircraft capacity.” This is the core of the lightweight fighter concept. “The Zero, more than any other airplane, epitomized this philosophy and is the best example of how successful it could be when all the conditions were right.”

Zero: “Designer Jiro Horikoshi maximized the Zero’s performance by reducing airframe weight to an unprecedented degree by cutting armor protection and employing an “extra super” duralumin alloy.”

Yak-3: In comparing the Bf 109 G-10 to the Yak-3, “Even so, the G-10 was no match whatever for the light-weight Yak 3...”

PhaseAcer (talk) 19:50, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

Oh, dear! This piece by one By William E. Burrows and cited above provides an excellent example of why we demand reliable sourcing. "lightweight fighters (such as the Royal Air Force Supermarine Spitfires and Hawker Hurricanes in action at the time)" really is absurd US-centric idiocy of the kind Binksternet rightly opposes. The Spit was deliberately manufactured using expensive hi-tech and heavily armed in order to move it well beyond that mould (If you want RS in profusion just start from the Supermarine Spitfire article and work your way through). Posting such obviously unreliable references does not help the lightweight case. On the other hand, for a genuine example of a WWII lightweight fighter in front-line service, I posted elsewhere about the Caudron C.714 flown by a couple of Polish squadrons in France before that country fell. As I usually find, the verifiable reality lies somewhere in between the claims of the more extreme editorial combatants. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 20:41, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

Steel, I included several of those articles simply to prove colloquial use of the term "lightweight fighter" in regards to efficient single engine WWII fighters, so they are naturally of modest weight and only included as additional data points on usage of the term. But for the case you criticize, I believe you have misjudged the applicable weight. The article is from "Air and Space Magazine", which I believe is a reputable publication staffed by professional aviation journalists. It is reporting the opinion of senior USAAC officers (fighter specification officers) early in WWII that the Spit and Hurricane WERE lightweight fighters by classification. I happen to think those officers were completely wrong in their opinion of the Hurricane and the Spitfire being too light, since those lightweight designs were intelligently trading ruggedness for the greater surprise, numbers, and agility that usually wins in air to air combat (and the Hurricane of steel tube and fabric construction was quite rugged for a lightweight). But that is not the issue--the point is to show classification of the front line Hurricane and Spitfire as lightweights in the eyes of the USAAC. This article is a direct counter to Binkster's unreferenced claim that nobody thought of them as lightweights at the time.

Up until 3 weeks ago when this discussion kicked off, this article had a total of 3 references, which had been the case for years. One of them was a 1932 newspaper article ( Mr Baldwin on Aerial Warfare – A Fear For The Future. The Times newspaper, 11 November 1932 p7 column B.) that was not even accessible. Yet, nobody was calling it idiotic for it to be 33% of the references.

Concerning the Spitfire, the early versions with 8 thirty caliber machine guns were not really heavily armed. It sounds like a lot of guns, but the weight of fire is only equivalent to two fifty caliber machine guns, and at lower velocity since the British 0.303 is a modest thirty cal round. That is a very minimum armament appropriate only to a lightweight fighter, even early in WWII.

Concerning the C.714, note it is only 629 lbs lighter than the Zero. Then, please consider what I posted above concerning necessary weight increases with speed since drag is increasing with the square of speed, necessitating stronger/heavier structure and more powerful/heavier engines. That necessarily changes the definition of "lightweight" as a function of performance and over the course of WWII, since there were significant speed increases in a brief 4 year window. With the C.714 at 3075 lbs and 283 mph max, and the Zero at 3704 lbs and 331 mph max, the Zero is even more of a lightweight fighter relative to performance than is the C.741 (nominal 37% drag increase thus about that much increase in structural weight and engine power/weight needed for equivalent design quality, but only 20% actual weight increase indicates a far better light fighter design job on the Zero). I am not asking to put that calculation in an article without a direct RS, but it illustrates the point. PhaseAcer (talk) 00:34, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

Oh, glory be! You have clearly never read up on the development history of the Spit and Hurri. A bit of parochial American chauvinism is not a "classification". Since you are still taking such idiocy seriously, I can be of no further help to you. I signed off this conversation once before, it was a mistake to come back. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 09:38, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

Steel, the issue of light vs heavy is one of the most interesting and important of all military aviation topics. It is a key element in how air wars are won and lost, and giant budgets and national security are at issue today. A large body of references is now delivered here to deal with it, both in WWII and in the modern era. I'm not sure why that particular reference, which is only intended with some others to show awareness in the USAAC of lightweight fighters in WWII, and which as far as know is a reputable publication, has irritated you. You are a voice of reason here and an expert editor, so I hope you change your mind. There is a big job to do here in summarizing and weighting these references, and in negotiating content, and your help is greatly needed. PhaseAcer (talk) 07:46, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

The light vs heavy argument is out of gas in the age of the drone, UAV and swarming. These days, the question is how best to use unmanned aircraft. Binksternet (talk) 17:45, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

For the past, and temporarily for the present, the light vs heavy issue is important. I agree that drones are nearly certain to become the dominant combat aircraft. Not only will they be cheaper, but they won't have to wear out the aircraft and deplete budget with practice. And, they will all be ace caliber, probably better than any human pilot, which will by itself multiply force effectivement per budget by more than a factor of ten. I recall buying my first chess playing software in the mid-1980's. I could beat it pretty handily. Today, you can buy a $50 piece of software for your PC that runs over the world chess champion. There is no stopping it--the days of fighter pilots doing a little sky jousting and then talking the action over while having a few drinks at the officers' club will soon be coming to an end. PhaseAcer (talk) 17:22, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

The strategic fighter

From sources I have been researching, a number of candidate heavy fighters appear to have been thought of at the time as strategic fighters. Possibly traceable back to WWI, this concept seems to have gained traction in the 1930s and also appears to have played a major role in American postwar military aviation. So, firstly I am surprised that there is no article on the topic, and secondly I wonder how much "heavy fighter" material here might better find a home there, as some important types seem to attract both descriptions? Or are they perhaps more or less synonymous? Whatever the relationship, there seem to be too many reliable sources to ignore the topic. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 01:47, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

I like the "Classification" section you have added to the main fighter aircraft article, with a structure of brief descriptions and then pointers to other more specialized fighter aircraft type articles. So, if the references are sound on the strategic fighter, it should be written up there.

But, there have always seemed to be real problems in the specialized "strategic fighter" idea, and those should also be written up (hopefully the references are there to allow that). The introductory sentence in the section there reads "The strategic fighter is a fast, heavily-armed and long-range type, able to act as an Escort fighter protecting bombers, to carry out offensive sorties of its own as a penetration fighter and maintain standing patrols at significant distance from its home base." That was tried in WWII with the P-47 and the P-38 as "heavily armed" fighters, and they were too poor in the air to air role to protect the bombers due to their lower surprise, lower numbers (expensive aircraft), lower maneuverability, and lower range. The bomber campaign in the ETO was only saved by turning the escort "strategic fighter" role over to the lightweight P-51 (I have a pretty tall stack of references on that point now). It had longer range, was the better dogfighter, and at half the price could be built in numbers.

The strategic mission requirement over most of bomber history may be summarized by three key elements: 1. Sufficient range. 2. Sufficient air to air ability to deal efficiently with enemy fighter. 3. Adequate numbers, including not only for direct bomber protection but to allow ranging ahead and clearing the airspace of enemy fighters. So, the way it works out is that an efficient single engine fighter is in practice superior to the large specialized strategic heavy fighter idea.

If the United States was setting up for that mission today, the F-16 (the modern equivalent of the P-51) would get the job. It is inherently longer range than the F-15 due to lower boat-tail drag of a single engine, and the lower trim drag of a software stabilized statically unstable airframe. It only takes half the fuel and thus half the tanker support for really long missions. It also is equipped for air to ground to destroy enemy fighter bases, and for the suppression of enemy air defenses (SEAD / Wild Weasel) role that would be needed to prevent enemy surface to air missiles from taking a heavy toll on the bomber force. So, it seems that in the modern era, with light electronics, precision weapons, and high thrust to weight jet engines, the need for such specialized aircraft has gone way down. PhaseAcer (talk) 05:39, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

I think you'll still mixing confounders in your analysis of the CBO and Pointblank. When Big Week rolls round in Feb 1944, the bomber force has been expanded. The Luftwaffe have laden down their fighters with armour and armament to take on bombers. The Luftwaffe lost 100 experienced pilots which could not be replaced - they are now engaged on three fronts -unlike the USAAF aircraft and crewmen. Thereafter it's a vicious cycle - the more the Luftwaffe loses the less effective they can defend, and the lower quality replacement pilots are easier to shoot down. GraemeLeggett (talk) 12:48, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

Graeme, you are of course right that the Luftwaffe was being ground down and becoming less effective throughout the second half of the war. But, I don't think it is correct to say that "confounding" variable in a multi-variable situation is dominant in discussing the effectiveness of different aircraft and classes of aircraft. It's our job to try to summarize and present the literature as best we can despite such issues, especially here in an article devoted to the subject of a particular class of fighter that was deeply involved.

Let me illustrate the issue with a reference I have not given before that goes right to the heart of the matter. The reasons the United States was originally losing the air war over Germany were identical to the reasons Germany lost the Battle of Britain. Namely, Germany was losing expensive highly resource intensive bombers, and England was only trading much cheaper (about 1/3 the cost) lightweight fighters for them, while getting half of their shot down pilots back. But, the situation was even worse for the United States over Germany. Now Germany was trading cheap lightweight fighters for VERY expensive heavy bombers that were 6X the cost and resource consumption of the German light fighters, and also trading those cheap light fighters for American heavy fighters that were 2X as expensive as their own light fighters, while they were the side getting to recover half their shot down fighter pilots (some German fighter pilots survived being shot down half a dozen times). It was a terrible resource sacrifice mismatch that not even the United States could tolerate. It was only solved by pulling the heavy fighters out of the escort role, switching the P-47 to ground attack, and moving the P-38 to the Pacific where it could at least deal with what were by then obsolete Zeroes. Then the P-51 lightweight fighters took over, achieving MUCH better kill ratios, while simultaneously losing only half the resources for every P-51 lost in combat (which were a smaller number due to the better kill ratio), and available in higher numbers due to their low cost. The bomber losses were then driven down to a level that was at least tolerable. According to the references, this was a case where a fighter configuration and design issue was absolutely essential to swinging the combat from defeat to victory. PhaseAcer (talk) 18:46, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

You cite someone with COI on the subject. There are many changes from 1943 to 1944 and then another change before mid-1944. How do you compare P-38s told to keep close with their bombers with Mustangs left to roam at will - the latter give the ability to pick a fight on their own terms rather than yielding surprise to the enemy. And then the targets change with the build up to invasion. Or the P-47 pilots flying in 1943 with their older more experienced selves flying in 1944. Against the background of changing circumstances, you can't point to eg a kill ratio number and say that means Aircraft X was 2x, 3x, 4x etc better than Aircraft Y. GraemeLeggett (talk) 13:02, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

Graeme, I'm citing enlightening information. In my opinion it does not matter that the source is on one side of an argument if their argument is good, so long as we are careful in evaluating the weight of the information when it goes in an article. And in fact, it is acknowledged in Wikipedia policy that references need not be neutral, and that often the most expert references are non-neutral. Highly intelligent experts with decades of experience do tend to form strong opinions.

Distilling complex information and competing factors down into neutral summary form is what Wikipedia editors do. Part of the P-51 success is no doubt due to the weakened state of the Luftwaffe, which is a complicating factor that we just have to cope with. In this case, if it were up to me, I would report the the combat data, the decisions made by the senior leadership, and how the references interpret all of that. What I would not do is refuse to show critical information to the readers just because that information is imprecise. In military issues, the fog of war is always present. PhaseAcer (talk) 17:03, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

The P-38's Classification as a 'Heavy Fighter'

I have seen two editors remove mentions of the P-38 on this page, so I figured I'd start a new section to discuss here. Many, if not most, modern sources describe the P-38 as a 'heavy fighter.' Just a selection of references: I can provide additional cites if anyone has a counter-point they'd like to make.

My contention is that the fact that the "...the US never really had a heavy fighter designation..." isn't all that relevant (sorry to call you out personally, Binksternet). Did any air force/service during WWII have a specific "heavy fighter" designation? (Genuinely curious) Aside from that, the U.S. did indeed use the term 'bomber destroyer,' which is roughly analogous to the heavy fighter class, or, at the very least, is a role which a 'heavy fighter' would be suited for.

The fact is, 'heavy fighter' is a modern term for a (rather broad) class of WWII aircraft. Aircraft needn't have been specifically designated as 'heavy fighters' in order to serve as them.

MarkFilgerleskiWiki (talk) 05:16, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

I think you are exactly right, Mark. The fact that the U.S. did not have an official heavy fighter designation did not stop them from issuing a requirement that resulted in one (just as they issued other requirements that resulted in lightweight fighters, though in that case they were often called out using that very term). That requirement was to carry a heavy weapons load at a high rate of climb, which resulted in a twin engine design, which resulted in a heavy fighter. The modern literature looks at it that way, and it is policy that in technical areas like aircraft design that more modern literature is not only valid, but of higher weight.

And, many other references describing the P-38 as a heavy fighter can be shown. For example,

“America’s Hundred Thousand: U.S. Production Fighters of World War Two”, Francis Dean, Schiffer Military Aviation History, 1997:

P. 137: The P-38 was a “very big single seat fighter”.

P. 160: “The P-38 was a large heavy fighter not suited for quick “snap” or “slam-bang” maneuvers, and had a particularly slow initial response to roll due to a high lateral inertial characteristic. The problem was a slow start into a roll...” “Many combat losses, particularly in North Africa, were attributed to this creaky initial rate of roll.”

The P-38 was also almost exactly twice the cost of the lightweight P-51, another almost defining characteristic of heavy fighters, and a very critical one in practical terms. PhaseAcer (talk) 07:56, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

More violations of WP:No original research. "Very big" doesn't equal the "heavy fighter" label, nor does more expense.

You guys should be looking at pre-Wikipedia sources, as the ones published later have often been influenced by Wikipedia. Germany is the one country with a fighter class, Zerstörer, that was also called "heavy fighter" in the mainstream literature. By far the majority of books about the P-38 classify it as a fighter, not as a "heavy fighter". Sure, it was relatively heavy, and we should tell that to the reader, but labeling it a heavy fighter is WP:UNDUE. Binksternet (talk) 13:57, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

Binkster, have you noticed that the P-38 was considerably heavier than the Bf 110, in fact a whopping 31% heavier? So, in practical terms, how could the Bf 110 be a heavy fighter and the P-38 not be one?

I have to note that summarizing the literature is not synthesis or original research. It is our main job as Wikipedia editors, whether the literature was pre or post Wikipedia.

Also, a real problem here seems to your aversion to even using the terms "lightweight" and "heavyweight", almost as if they don't exist, or are so rigidly defined that "normal" fighters cannot be so classified. But, they do exist throughout the literature, and they are very useful mental constructs for understanding fighter aircraft (and it is irrelevant that some literature is not astute enough to cover the issue, since this is an article on that very issue and we seek out the literature that applies). A key point there is that it has been proven in combat that efficient single engine fighters with adequate performance (what the literature calls "lightweights") tend to dominate over heavy twin engine fighters, from WWII to now. It is also a critically important strategic point that they cost about half as much (since this allows the numbers to win wars), which is well documented in the literature. This was specifically understood and acknowledged by the senior officer leadership of the USAAC during WWII in direct comparison of the P-38 to the P-51. PhaseAcer (talk) 17:04, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

References

Yeah, I don't understand the hesitance to define the class. I also think we need to acknowledge that all heavy fighters are fighters (whether they were any good at it or not is irrelevant) but obviously not all fighters were heavy fighters. Aside from that, I think we have plenty of pre-Wiki sources citing the P-38 as a 'heavy fighter,' although I will add one of those sources to the actual article.MarkFilgerleskiWiki (talk) 20:44, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

PhaseAcer, you are still at it, trying to become the judge of what is heavy and what is not. The P-38 was a far better airplane design, with better aerodynamics, better engines, and with the huge benefit of only one crewmember instead of two or three. So stop trying to figure this stuff out on your own. Binksternet (talk) 21:32, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

Yes, the P-38 is a better design, without the failed idea of a fighter having gunners to supplement forward guns controlled by the pilot. But, the references do seem to take the significant majority view that it is a heavy fighter. Being better does not make in "non-heavy" in any reference I have seen. PhaseAcer (talk) 22:23, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

Far more references describe the P-38 as a fighter than the few that say it was specifically a "heavy fighter". The text of this heavy fighter article will change depending on whether it can be shown that there's a significant minor view or a fringe view that the P-38 was a "heavy fighter". Of course the mainstream historian view is that it was a fighter on the heavy side, as that was how it was specified, designed and deployed. Absolutely no job it was given was ever described as a "heavy fighter" job. We can certainly tell the reader all the major and minor viewpoints about the P-38, but we should determine whether the "heavy fighter" label view is fringe or significant minor. Binksternet (talk) 23:34, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

Binksternet, I think you'll find many sources describe the P-38 as simply a 'fighter.' That doesn't make it not a 'heavy fighter.' Again, all heavy fighters are fighters, and can be described as such. It's analogous to saying that a 'heavy bomber' is not a bomber. The P-38 was a twin-engine, heavy-weight, heavily armed (relative to American fighters, obviously) fighter with long-range capabilities. This is in line with most other contemporary heavy fighters. As for the claim that "Absolutely no job it was given was ever described as a "heavy fighter" job," I would disagree. Indeed, it was originally designed as a bomber-destroyer/interceptor (this book goes so far to claim that the P-38 was never even intended to to function in air superiority role whatsoever; only as a bomber-destroyer/interceptor; although I accept that's a dubious claim). The P-38 also performed -- quite successfully -- in the ground-attack role. Finally, the P-38 performed the role of a long-range escort fighter. All of these are roles performed by contemporary heavy fighters.

I also think you may be misunderstanding the point PhaseAcer is trying to make? Or perhaps I'm misunderstanding it. But, from what I understand, he is not saying that there's any correlation between the modern definitions of lightweight fighters and WWII 'light fighters.'

Cheers, mate

MarkFilgerleskiWiki (talk) 01:13, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

References

I am in fact saying that a book describing the P-38 as a fighter is a reference showing that it is not a heavy fighter. If it was a heavy fighter, the book would have said so. Warren Bodie's definitive book on the P-38 describes a few German heavy fighters but the P-38 is described as a fighter, not a heavy fighter. Binksternet (talk) 01:45, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

Does Wikipedia consider the ABSENCE of information in a reference to have reliable meaning? Can you provide a quote that in this case it would? If so, that would be one reference. PhaseAcer (talk) 02:10, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

Mark, if you're saying that long-range bomber escort and ground attack are two jobs for heavy fighters how do you explain the P-51 doing well in those roles? And what "contemporary heavy fighters" are there to compare with the P-38?

The P-38 was designated an "interceptor" by the two fighter project officers Kelsey and Saville for only one reason: to get past the inflexible USAAC restriction on fighters limiting them to 500 lbs of armament. Kelsey explained very fully in his book The Dragon's Teeth and in interviews with Warren Bodie who confirmed the same idea in his definitive book about the P-38. The idea was that Kelsey wanted a better fighter that could hit harder and win its fights. He said that the same requirement was given for a single engine fighter, ending up as the P-39, and for a twin engine fighter ending up as the P-38. Both of them shared the exact same performance requirements except for the number of engines. So it would be REALLY ignorant for an author to say that the P-38 was designed as one kind of fighter while the P-39 was designed as another kind. They were both the same: a better American fighter with better weaponry. Kelsey never called the P-38 a "heavy fighter" nor did Warren Bodie. Binksternet (talk) 06:37, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

Binksternet, "if you're saying that long-range bomber escort and ground attack are two jobs for heavy fighters how do you explain the P-51 doing well in those roles?" Ah, so the issue is that you're conflating roles with classes, and you're bringing performance in said roles into the argument. In my opinion,your argument is flawed; What does the P-51's performance in 'other' roles have to do with the P-38's classification? Why does the Bf 110 have one of the best victory-to-loss ratios of any fighter of the BoB? Since it performed so well in the air-to-air role, does this mean it can't be a heavy fighter? (I admit that I'm skeptical of this claim, as the Luftwaffe is notorious for over-claiming victories, but I'm merely using this to make point) Because the LaGG-3 was considered a poor fighter does that mean it shouldn't be considered a fighter? Should the B-17 not be referred to as a bomber, since DH Mosquitoes could often carry as much/more weight in bombs than they could? Since B-25s often mounted forward-facing guns for strafing runs, does this mean it's no longer a medium bomber? The P-51 conducting escort missions and some ground-attack missions doesn't change the fact that the P-38 had twin-engines, was (relatively) heavy-weight, was designed for long-range operations (longer than contemporary single-engine fighters when first designed), etc.

"And what "contemporary heavy fighters" are there to compare with the P-38?" The Westland Whirlwind, the de Havilland Mosquito, the Bristol Beaufighter, the Messerschmitt Bf 110 (I would consider including the Me-210 & Me-410 but IMO, I think the argument can be made that these are really pushing the envelope when being considered heavy 'fighters'), I might even stretch the comparison to the Fokker G.1. And before you bring performance into air-to-air combat into the equation; The P-38's ability to out-perform most (if not all) of these heavy fighters in A2A combat has no bearing on her classification.

I'm perfect comfortable admitting that the use of the 'heavy fighter' term is relatively modern. As long as we could cite this, I think we could specify that the term wasn't always explicitly used contemporaneously when referring to these fighters, but it's a relatively modern term used by historians and aviation-enthusiasts to specify a (rather broad) class of WWII aircraft. These are twin-engine (although there are some people that contend certain single-engine fighters should be classed as heavy fighters; I don't believe this, I'm just stating it for transparency's sake) fighters, that can function as fighters, but can also function in the ground-attack, and long-range escort role. The fact of the matter is, nearly every source I've looked at, both on-line and in-print refers to the P-38 as a 'heavy fighter.' A small minority refer to her as a "heavyweight fighter," which I cede is merely referring to her literal weight, not her class. I've yet to find any source that refers to her a simply a 'fighter,' although I do intend on looking at Bodie's book (obviously I believe what you're saying it says). If I had to boil my argument down here, it would be this; All heavy fighters are fighters. Whether they were any good at that role is irrelevant. The most basic definition possible of a WWII heavy fighter would be a twin-engine fighter. Anyways, cheers; Apologies for the long response MarkFilgerleskiWiki (talk) 08:58, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

The specifications from USAAC officers Kelsey and Saville did not talk about range at all, so it would be undue emphasis to say that Lockheed was answering a demand for range when it designed the P-38. (The closest thing to range in the specification was the requirement for the aircraft to sustain an hour of full power operation at 20,000 ft.) The initial range of the P-38 was only 475 miles at a combat speed of 339 mph, or 1175 miles at a cruising speed of 195 mph. But in late 1941 when Kelsey spoke to Lockheed about adding pylons for drop tanks and external stores, which was a handshake deal lacking any official USAAC paperwork, Kelsey was telling Lockheed that he thought long range was going to be critically important. Thus it was more than four years into the project that long-range drop tanks were added. We should not be saying that the P-38 was initially designed for long range. Binksternet (talk) 16:19, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

Light and Heavy Fighters, WWII to Today

Mark, I answered your question yesterday (sign tag PhaseAcer (talk) 02:13, 22 January 2020 (UTC)) on the literature definition of light and heavy over time, and it dissapeared overnight, so here it is again.

Actually I can find no strategic or significant distinction between WWII era lightweight and heavyweight fighters and modern lights and heavies. I say that because the more professional level literature I have reviewed (such as the Sprey report and "The Pentagon Paradox") considers lightweights as the same strategic concept over this time. Namely, highly efficient usually single engine fighters with the minimum weapons and equipment to perform the mission. They typically cost about half as much and consume about half as much resources as the heavy fighters of their era. Those heavy fighters are usually twins (hence the 2X price problem) whose main asset is stronger armament in return for costing twice the price. An often quoted advantage for heavy twins is greater range, but that is a misconception. The Breguet Range Equation (Range (aeronautics)) shows to a first order range is not a function of size, but dependent on relative drag (drag per pound), fuel fraction, and engine efficiency. But a problem twins have is they have a bit higher relative drag, with piston aircraft having three fuselage drag elements and twin jets having higher boat-tail drag. So, comparing the P-51 and the P-38, while the P-51 can only carry a bit more than half the fuel (P-51D with 269 gallons internal, typically 2 drop tanks of 108 gallons each, but able to carry drop tanks up to 165 gallons, and P-38J with 410 gallons internal, and drop tanks up to 300 gallons), it burns less than half the fuel (50 gallons per hour at bomber cruise, vs 120 gallons for the P-38). That's fundamentally why the P-51 had significantly better range, which happened to be a critical factor in the European theater. Similarly, the F-16 has better range than the F-15, when both are either without conformal tanks or feature conformal tanks.

And when it comes to combat, those heavies can be visually spotted at about 1.5X to 2X the range. That correlates with the fact that the majority of shoot-downs occur with surprise bounce advantage. That is still important today despite radar (In Vietnam, only 2.8% of detections by American radar equipped fighters were made by their on board radars.) The lightweights also on average have superior agility. Between those two factors, in statistically significant trials, lightweight fighters tend to win. The P-51 scored a 3.6 to 1 kill ratio in the ETO, whereas the P-38 scored 1.4 (reported). In the last public trial conducted by the USAF with F-16's and F-18's competing against the larger F-15, the two F-16 squadrons (one a National Guard squadron that scored 1st) and the Canadian F-18 squadron scored ahead of all five F-15 squadrons (including BVR). Those F-15 squadrons were the best in the USAF, also. After that, the USAF never again allowed such a public trial. They would have really been waxed in a battle of equal budgets, with two F-16 squadrons per F-15 squadron. I tried to provide the link on that here, but now find the link has been taken down. I am having trouble getting to it on "The Wayback Machine" also, though it is listed as saved there. PhaseAcer (talk) 18:06, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

References

Regarding WWII aircraft, people in the 1940s and 1950s were not commonly talking about aircraft size versus distance of first observation, with the intention of optimization. Such factors were only examined in the 1960s and later. Don't tell the reader false information about what was an important engineering design factor in the 1940s. Binksternet (talk) 18:32, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

Despite a lot of reading, I have seen only limited evidence one way or the other as to how much visibility was taken into account in the size of WWII fighters. It certainly was reported by WWII fighter pilots that small fighters like the Bf 109 were hard to see, and big fighters like the P-38 easy to see. Japanese fighter pilots trained intensively on spotting enemy fighters first, using stars in the daytime as pinprick targets to develop their abilities. The designers certainly understood visibility from the cockpit as a key issue, with the Zero deliberately getting an almost bubble canopy even before the war to maximize visibility. But, from the references I gave above, it is crystal clear that the designers had a deep understanding of manueverability and cost. Thus, most of the fighters were efficient SMALL single engine fighters in order to have those advantages. And, the RESULT of that was that those small lightweight fighters had low visibility and element of surprise advantages over larger fighters. That is the key fact, not how intentional it was in the design process to achieve that. That advantage is presented in many references, and as I have pointed out several times, Wikipedia actually favors later references in techncial areas. Example quote: "...the dominant fact of air combat is that roughly 80% of all fighter victims in war are shot down unaware of their attacker--and this appears to be at least as true with radar-equipped Mach 2 fighters as it with 90 knot biplanes."

It does not carry much weight, but because it is interesting I'll give an anecdotal example: "Eric Hartmann, the world's foremost air-to-air fighting man, has stated that in his opinion 80% of his victims never knew he was in the same sky with them. When he came in from his first contact with the allied Mustang fighter he was asked if the performance of this renowned airplane was as good as its reputation. His anwer was, "I couldn't say. None of the four I got today was on full-throttle."" Hartman (352 kills) flew the very small Bf 109, even smaller than the Mustang, and got all four Mustangs that day by the element of surprise. It is a crucial element, it is well documented in expert and professional literature as applying through the entire history of air combat, and it should certainly be mentioned here. And, it is a crucial fact that small lightweight fighters have the advantage there.

You don't seem to think much of Pierre Sprey, but let me note a few points here. Sprey was key in definition of the F-15, for decades the best heavy fighter. Sprey was key in definition of the F-16, for decades probably the best fighter of all, and still the world's most popular fighter. Sprey was the architect of the A-10, the best attack aircraft in history, so good that the USAF just can't get rid of it despite being determined to do so for many years in order to divert its modest budget to the F-35. This guy is an extreme expert who knows how to get to the bottom line, so I take what he writes quite seriously. His fighter effectiveness report appears to the best thing available on the subject. PhaseAcer (talk) 20:41, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

References

It doesn't automatically follow that a victim's lack of awareness of the enemy was caused by a smaller planform. Your reference doesn't say so explicitly. Many of the top scoring pilots took advantage of tactical opportunities in the air such as cloud wisps or haze or sun from which they could pounce. Binksternet (talk) 22:02, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

Sure, but I am not talking about particular cases, except to tell what I think was an interesting story about Hartmann. These statistical issues seem like 2nd nature to me because I am a wireless engineer regularly performing statistical analyses. In this particular situation, it is both clear to me technically and presented by the references that the statistics of surprise advantage over a large number of statistical trials (long term combat or many practice combat sorties) are a function of aircraft size, human eye biology, and simple geometry. If a large plane is visible twice as far away, it is visible over 4X as much area (same altitude) and 8X as much volume (widely different altitude). The odds of seeing the big plane first are much greater (it is simply relative area or volume, and easilty calculated), and this "loads the dice" over a large number of combats. I'm pretty sure the senior planners and the designers had to be perfectly aware of that simple fact, because they would have to be idiots not to be. But, because they were already designing single engine fighters for small size, high maneurverability, and low cost, and resorting to big fighters only to carry heavy weapons loads and try to provide longer range, the issue was already taken care of. There was not much use talking about visibility as a function of size, because the die was already cast on what they were going to build. PhaseAcer (talk) 23:21, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

You keep analyzing the situation yourself rather than keeping strictly to what the sources say. Wikipedia doesn't allow it, per WP:No original research. It's a pernicious trait that creeps into your Wikipedia contributions, pushing your notional summary of sources into synthesis. Binksternet (talk) 00:16, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

Binkster, most of what I say above is in multiple references. But in any case, we're on the talk page, where the pointer you just gave says: "This policy of no original research does not apply to talk pages and other pages which evaluate article content and sources, such as deletion discussions or policy noticeboards." What I am hoping for in describing these issues on the talk page is that I will get some help finding pertinent references that allow presentation in the article. It may well be that some editors have applicable references right on their shelves, and then this discussion may trigger them to report those references. PhaseAcer (talk) 00:39, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

"Sprey was key in definition of the F-15, for decades the best heavy fighter. Sprey was key in definition of the F-16, for decades probably the best fighter of all, and still the world's most popular fighter. Sprey was the architect of the A-10, the best attack aircraft in history" Defining a spec and delivering it are two different things. Also still can't rule out motivated reasoning in Sprey's works - an element of survivor bias in work he was involved was adopted hence the alternatives not adopted can't be evaluated. Also with F-16 you're making and "argument from popularity" rather than allowing that usage could be manifestation of eg geo-political considerations from American hegemony in arms manufacture and aid to friendly nations. (Also twice as many times Mig-21 produced). Avoid over-reliance on one author by finding other sources to get a worldview. GraemeLeggett (talk) 12:34, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

Graeme, Sprey is a top expert to be taken seriously, but I have brought dozens of references besides him. I've also covered non-American aircraft and authors to the extent I can find the references. For example, the two books on the Gripen are by Swedish authors. I have quoted one Japanese reference (Saburu Sakai, highest scoring Japanese Zero ace to survive WWII), I have quoted the direct statements of Zero chief design engineer Jiro Horikoshi, and I have an English translation of Horikoshi's autobiography on order. I have quoted the design goals of the Bf 109 directly as a lightweight and as satisfying strategic lightweight design goals from the book you introduced as a reference for the light fighter article, "Messerschmitt Bf 109, Versions B-E" (which appears to have two English authors and one German researcher). I have quoted from the single Russian source and author I have so far found, “Fighter Aircraft Performance of WW2, A Comparative Study”, by Eric Pilawski, on the Yak-3 as a lightweight fighter. I have also just today ordered a book on the Spitfire and another book on early jet fighters, by the same English author. If more non-American sources can be found, I will present them. Perhaps you have some that report on light and heavy that you could bring to bear. PhaseAcer (talk) 23:49, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

where would you be going with idea of Spitfire as lightweight? Spitfire and Hurricane, at point of introduction, were around twice the all-up weight of the fighters they replaced. And a fair bit heavier than eg the Vickers Venom monoplane designed to a contemporary spec for an eight gun fighter. The Whirlwind was heavier with twin engines to meet requirement for nose mounted armament and meet required speed. GraemeLeggett (talk) 21:51, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

This issue is so important that I will cover it again, and in return for taking the trouble I would ask you not complain about the "wall of words" it takes to get the issue fully on the table. You are asking, so I am giving you the truthful and accurate answer.

The key aerodynamic fact is that drag increases with the square of speed, thus stronger structure and more powerful engines are needed, thus weight must go up as speed goes up (this is an issue that keeps causing confusion). There is thus a continuous curve of efficient lightweight fighter weight vs. speed, when comparing similar technology. The preceding Hawker Fury won't scale accurately to Spitfire weight and speed smoothly, since the Fury was a draggy fixed gear biplane (it scales to a higher weight because of its excessive drag). Sure it was only half the weight of a Spitfire, but it was also only 220mph top speed. The Bristol Bulldog used in higher volume was a tube and fabric biplane with top speed of only 178 mph. Naturally such slow speeds allow much lighter weight than the 330 to 450 mph fighters of WWII. We discussed this general issue 4 years ago in the light fighter article editing in noting that the P-26 Peashooter "standard" fighter at 2196 lbs was a good bit lower in weight than the faster "very light" emergency interceptors like the XP-77 just a few years later.

The early Spitfire, Hurricane, and Bf 109 lightweight designs at about 340 to 370 mph are simply at a different place on that light fighter speed, weight, and technology curve than the earlier aircraft (the technology has changed for the Spit and the Bf 109 to monocoque monoplanes with retractable gear and variable pitch props). The Hurricane, though a monoplane retractable, is moderately slower and heavier because it is different lower aerodynamic efficiency technology than monocoque--steel tube and fabric. But in general, when speed goes up about 40% for similar technology, weight will approximately double. The later versions of similar technology fighters like the Spitfire and Bf 109 are at a still different place compared to their earlier versions.

Let's check the Spitfire as an example. Since the whole run is basically similar technology, we expect fairly accurate scaling. The Mk1A early version was 4306 lbs, 1030HP, and 367mph. The late MkX1Ve was 6653lbs, 2050HP, and 449mph. Note in scaling up the early version to the late version and first order predicting weight, we estimate (449/367)^2 X 4306 lbs = 6445 lbs. The actual weight of the later version was 6653 lbs, a little heavier, but it had heavier guns to deal with the fact that the late war competition was more rugged. Most examples you check in similar technology will show similar first order compliance to this basic square law rule. I was going to check where the Vickers Venom fell on the curve, but I cannot find its empty weight. I am also a little suspicious of the speed claim on the single prototype and the claim that speed was in armed form, since pictures of the plane do not seem to show gun ports.

KEY FACT: What is "lightweight" in weight is changing in accordance with the speed, the basic laws of aerodynamics, and the mission (range, load factors, weapons). What is lightweight in principle is remaining constant (as efficient, low weight, and low cost as the speed and mission will allow). Strategically, the Spitfire is thus a lightweight because it is an efficient single engine design no heavier than necessary to achieve its speed, load factor, weapons load, and mission requirements.

Steel was saying above that the Spitfire was quite a "complex" fighter, I assume meaning that maybe it was not such a "lightweight". But, so are all the really good fighters. The Zero was the lightest of the war, barely heavier than the very light emergency fighters, a sophisticated design, but strategically still a lightweight. The P-51 is aerodynamically more sophisticated that the supposedly "complex" P-38, with the P-51 featuring laminar flow wing, Meredith effect low drag radiator, and partially area ruled fuselage, yet it satisfies the strategic definition of a lightweight considering its efficient single engine design, higher speed, and the fact it cost half of what the P-38 does. It was a little heavier than the late Spitfires with similar speed only because it was designed to higher load factors and had the structure for higher fuel fraction to support the escort mission. The F-16 is a very sophisticated design, more sophisticated than the F-15. The F-15 did not have its quad redundant fly by wire statically unstable airframe, and the F-15 has a draggy fixed roll camber leading edge (the 16 has slats). Yet, the F-16 is half the price, is better in air to air due to superior surprise and maneuverability, has longer range (lower drag of a single, lower trim drag due to being statically unstable), and has strong air to ground capability as icing on the cake. It is an outstanding lightweight. However, the JAS 39 Gripen is more sophisticated than the F-16, with its carnard delta aerodynamics enabling super-cruise and superior surprise (coming up from behind instead of vice versa), with faster sortie rates enhancing numbers at the point of combat, so it represents a later and better example of a lightweight than the F-16. Being lower weight it is also lower cost--it has "out-sixteened" the F-16.

So, the historial record does not indicate that lightweights are less sophisticated. Succesful lightweights are usually at least as sophisticated, and often more sophisticated, in order to be aerodynamically competitive (they just do without unnecessary features, like radar guided missiles back when those missiles were of low value). But, they come in at much lower cost because each pound of weight has a proportional amount of design time and production cost. Fundamentally, fighters are sold by the pound, and more pounds than are absolutely essential just makes them a bigger, less agile, and more vulnerable target, and also available in lower numbers. PhaseAcer (talk) 06:13, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

It's cited in the article on the Venom that it was fitted with armament from the off.GraemeLeggett (talk) 09:23, 26 January 2020 (UTC)

Is This Literature Sufficient?

I have brought over 40 references on lightweight and heavyweight fighters from WWII to the present. These include many non-American fighters, and as many non-American sources as I can locate. Some of this literature is quite professional and detailed, while other modest weight sources are included simply to show acceptance of the semantic terms lightweight and heavyweight as classifications, and understanding of certain aircraft falling into one of those categories. It is the consistent position of this literature that small, efficient, moderately armed, lower cost, and usually single engine fighters from WWII to now are "lightweight fighters", with "heavyweight fighters" usually being better armed and higher featured twins costing about twice as much, and that for many to most missions the lightweights are superior plane for plane (the fighter effectiveness criteria of surprise, numbers, and maneuverability favors them), and far superior budget for budget.

Nobody has been able to locate any viable counter-literature to this general semantic and strategic position. The only counters so far made are that some of the literature is American-centric, that lack of coverage of the issue in many references should somehow be interpreted as a counter, that some editors have personal opinions that differ from the literature, and that some of the combat result issues might be complicated. None of those deflecting arguments alter the fundamental Wikipedia policy that neutrality is required, and that by definition it means present the references.

The basic question is therefore: Is this literature sufficient to satisfy the editors to begin the process of presenting it? If not, what more will be needed? PhaseAcer (talk) 17:57, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

No, not for WWII aircraft. Your references don't outweigh the mass of literature about military aircraft in WWII. And your authors are pointedly trying to change history, which isn't going to happen.

Binksternet (talk) 18:16, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

Binkster, I would appreciate it if you might answer a few questions that would make your position more clear:

1. What is your interpretation of the literature on the definition of lightweight and heavyweight fighters?

2. Do you have any literature to present on lightweights and heavyweights in the WWII era, other than references that do not discuss this classification issue? Does such literature dominate in weight over the references presented? Does it dominate to the point that the views of the references I have shown should not be presented at all?

3. What it is under policy that justifies your rejection of later literature that you feel rewrites history? (From WP: AGE MATTERS: "Especially in scientific and academic fields, older sources may be inaccurate because new information has been brought to light, new theories proposed, or vocabulary changed." PhaseAcer (talk) 19:22, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

Hi, PhaseAcer, thanks for clarifying. I think I have to come in the middle on this dispute. I think Binksternet makes valid points regarding the fact that these are more modern terms, especially with the advent of the lightweight fighter program. I think it would fine to mention, however, at least on this page, that some modern writers/historians class WWII fighters as heavyweight/lightweight fighters nowadays, and include your sources there. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MWFwiki (talk • contribs) 05:28, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

MWF, I am a reasonable editor seeking a compromise with Binkster. I understand the confusion over what is "light" and what is "heavy", especially in the WWII timeframe, because in truth the literature on the issue is scattered and sometimes lacking in clarity. It took me a lot of work sifting though many references to uncover it. As a result of uncovering it, here are the key summary factors:

1. The literature does show that the WWII military leaders, designers, and manufacturers fully understood the lightweight fighter concept. The only one of the four fighter effectiveness criteria (surprise, numbers, maneuverability, weapons ability to score fast kills when the opportunity is present) that is not reported in early literature (or from later interviews with and publishing of contemporary documents of the key WWII participants) is surprise as a function of size. That is almost certainly due to minimum size/weight already being set by speed (strength and engine power to overcome drag increasing as the square of speed) and weapons load, and lack of combat data available at the time on the high statistical value of surprise (that data came out of WWII combat results).

2. The design masters of WWII in a practical sense thus knew almost everything about the issue that the "Fighter Mafia" would later present. The Fighter Mafia did come out with more formalized and extensive description of the issues, with extra emphasis on surprise. The reason the Fighter Mafia made such an issue of explaining it better was that they were in a huge political fight over the strategically critical issue of small, efficient, single engine fighters being able to do almost everything that big fighters do, often better due to superior surprise and maneuverability, and do it for half the price. The primary source of Fighter Mafia output has long since been agreed to by a large body of secondary sources, and hence has become reliable Wikipedia source material.

3. RESULTS: During WWII, what is "lightweight" in weight is changing in accordance with the speed, the basic laws of aerodynamics, and the mission (range, load factors, weapons). What is lightweight in principle is remaining constant (as efficient, low weight, and low cost as the speed and mission will allow). That priciple allows fielding a superior fighter force for half the cost, which is a crucial factor in winning long wars that hinge on best use of resources. That priciple has been true from WWII to now.

4. Presentation of that results is within Wikipedia policy even if more of the literature is modern. In fact, in technical areas with changing terms and interpretation, more modern literature is encouraged.

If any literature that supports Binkster's view can be found, I am all for reporting it. But, Binkster's position that LACK of coverage of the issue in many references means there is a default "just a fighter" classification that dominates here does not seem to be within neutrality policy. His statement just above, "And your authors are pointedly trying to change history, which isn't going to happen." seems to be a position that no matter how high the references are stacked, he is not going to allow presentation of the references. As the long list above shows, the references are both older and newer. The older ones certainly cannot be accused of "trying to change history", and the newer are in policy even if they were seeking to provide an historical interpretation that was not understood before (which in the main, they are not since the issues were mostly understood within WWII).

If the position continues to be that the references cannot be presented, I am wondering if an ArbComm ruling is the only answer. It does not need to be a hostile arbitration, and need not seek sanctioning of any editor over the issue. The point of such a ruling would be to clarify the policy position on if it is acceptable to reject more modern references on this issue, and if lack of coverage of the issue in some references can be interpreted as those references having dominant value on a point they do not even address. PhaseAcer (talk) 19:26, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

PhaseAcer, (by the way, this is Mark, I just changed my username so my full name wasn’t visible anymore) I agree with your points, for the most part. Especially because you can cite your points. Make a new section on the ‘heavy fighter’ page detailing the concept of WWII light & heavy fighters. Maybe call it ‘Defining WWII Light & Heavy Fighters,’ or something similar.

As long as you make it clear that they’re more modern classifications, and the sources back you, then you’re good. You can even say that they are terms that were used sparsely contemporaneously, as long as you have the sources to prove it.

I think what Binksternet wants to avoid is anyone trying to claim that the line between a light and heavy fighter was clear, and that they were terms employed often. I’m sure they were used occasionally, but from most of what I’ve seen and read, people called single-engine fighters... fighters, and twins were heavy fighters.

Cheers

Mark

MWFwiki (talk) 21:25, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

Mark, I certainly have no argument with noting that in the WWII timeframe it is more common to refer to a lightweight fighter as... "a fighter". That often occurs even today. But, it is provable that the designers and/or the specifiers of most of the more efficient single engine WWII fighters thought of them as lightweight fighters. Of the more successful such fighters, the only ones I have not gotten direct quotes to that effect on are the Spitfire and the Fw 190 (still searching on those, though colloquial modern references have been located).

The use of the term "lightweight" became more common in modern times as a counter to the heavy F-4 and the F-15, which was a political struggle over billions of dollars. But, even today, the terms are politically sensitive and not always used. I happen to know a career military aviation author who seldom uses them. When I asked him why, he said because it made political enemies and would dry up his inside sources. James Stevenson, in the "Ackknowledgement" section of his excellent book "The Pentagon Paradox" devoted to this subject, notes that many of his inside sources must remain unnamed because it would jeopardize their careers to be known. The struggle over money and careers has rendered this relatively simple topic as very contentious. Since the F-35, a medium heavyweight a little heavier than the F-15, has become the largest defense contract ever, with estimated value over $1 trillion, it is easy to see why. PhaseAcer (talk) 00:20, 26 January 2020 (UTC)

Leave WWII out of it. The debate about light versus heavy fighters started in 1952, not earlier. The RAND corporation wrote about it in 1967. They said that the impetus for the debate was American dissatisfaction with their Korean War fighters which were saddled with useless luxuries. The light fighter concept was put forward by various advocates but they were only able to block a Lockheed proposal for another complex fighter, the L-227. They were NOT able at that time to come up with a lightweight fighter project. But Lockheed saw which way the wind was blowing and they proposed the F-104 later that same year, which was a relatively lightweight and clean fighter, armed with a powerful autocannon. Binksternet (talk) 01:56, 28 January 2020 (UTC)