Talk:Light fighter

You may want to increment {{Archive basics}} to |counter= 2 as Talk:Light fighter/Archive 1 is larger than the recommended 150Kb.

Suggested Editing Plan

It has now been nearly three weeks without any references added to the completely unreferenced and in some cases incorrect Lead Maury had written, and without correction of the significant errors in the under-referenced Concepts section. There also has been no discussion on the Talk page about the many errors and omissions that have been pointed out in these sections, errors that were specifically listed in order to allow the contributing editor the opportunity to add references and fix the major errors that had been introduced. I have thus today replaced those sections with candidate new text which is fully referenced, and as far as I can tell from the references, also correct in its statements.

The candidate lead is four paragraphs that summarize the total article content. The form Newzild had edited it into was very brief “news format”, whereas policy specifies encyclopedic format of typically four paragraphs or less. It summarizes and weights the major issues as it is supposed to do. I left Maury’s major contention that some modern “light fighters” are modified trainers, but as this assertion is unreferenced I would assume we must find appropriate references or else take that out. I don’t know of any references on that point other than sales literature.

The Concept section, in addition to now being sound and referenced, is also considerably shorter than the “incorrect point” followed by “referenced counter-point” form that it has been in for several weeks while waiting for corrective edits. I did leave it in Maury’s preferred Advantages and Disadvantages form, just with the true and referenceable advantages and disadvantages presented. In the interest of encyclopedic compactness, I also reduce historical content and focused more on the general light fighter concept, with most discussion focused on the more important modern era. The historical thinking is adequately covered in the History sections.

My hope would be that these edits would be allowed to stand as a blueprint and plan, a sound foundation suitable for building upon. If so, they can then edited into final form by a team effort. If we do that I believe we will have an article worthy of promotion well above the current “Start Class” level. The material is strategically important and very militarily interesting, and could allow this article to proceed all the way to Feature Article status.

Maury, I made these edits with only two insertions. You can revert them both without violating 3RR. However, if you do then we should enter into the Discussion part of the BRD cycle. Even if you don’t revert, we are overdue for discussion and team effort in improving this article for promotion. I'm not trying to do unilateral editing here. But, in the absence of necessary error correction and referencing that I have been waiting several weeks for, I'm trying to put a sound foundation in place that can be edited from here into an excellent article. We can't get there without discussion and attracting strong editors to work on the article, people like Graeme, who in my opinion are limiting their input because they don't want to do the work only to have it unilaterally written over without discussion and teamwork. PhaseAcer (talk) 17:48, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

NOTE ON LENGTH:

The article is now 8,281 words to cover all of light fighter concepts and history.

The article on the Northrop F-5 light fighter is 14,024 words, for just one plane. PhaseAcer (talk) 00:24, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

Per definition on WP:Article size, Northrop F-5 is closer to 10,000 words. Which is within recommendations. GraemeLeggett (talk) 09:27, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

Going just by "readable prose", the current light fighter article is only about 6600 words. Wiki guidance is that single articles up to about 40,000 words are generally fine if the subject is worthy of a longer article. But, the point is that we are not so long here that we need to leave out key information for encyclopedic brevity. For example, the few sentences it would take to explain the Gnat dominating over the F-86 is a key example of light fighter effectiveness that would be very worthwhile to include. PhaseAcer (talk) 13:56, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

P-51 Mustang again

I have removed most of the text added by PhaseAcer because of big problems with WP:WEIGHT (irony acknowledged) and WP:SYNTH. PhaseAcer is insisting that the P-51 was America's first light fighter but it was never given that label until Sprey came along to argue his minor viewpoint about modern air warfare. Sprey wants to validate his views and he changes history to do so. By far the majority of sources talking about the P-51 Mustang establish it as a standard pursuit fighter which was designed to be somewhat lighter and faster than its opponents. Binksternet (talk) 01:22, 22 December 2019 (UTC)

• I saw that, thanks for reverting it. In what way was a P-51 a "light fighter"? And how does that concept even exist except as a response to, and after, a "heavy fighter" – i.e. the "weapon system" aircraft which were proving so expensive in the US in the early 1950s. Andy Dingley (talk) 01:52, 22 December 2019 (UTC)

Binkster, I have redone some of your changes. In the Intro, you are deleting key references on the definition of light and lightweight fighters. And, in the P-51 section you are defining the P-51 as a "standard" fighter with no references to define that term and apply it to the P-51. That is apparently pure unreferenced PoV, while I am bringing key references that the P-51's own design team defined and designed it as a lightweight fighter. Now, if you can bring references that define "standard" fighter, and that being distinct from "lightweight" fighter, and with that definition applied to the P-51, then I have no argument including it. But, Wikipedia policy is to present the majority view of the literature, as well as all significant minority views, so both positions would need to be covered. In this case you seem to be totally deleting the majority view and replacing it with your opinion. Also, while you are entitled to your opinion on Sprey, he is a well recognized expert, and it is not within policy to remove him from referencing.

Andy, if you seriously want an answer to "In what way was a P-51 a light fighter?", then see the very well researched books "Development of the P-51 Mustang Long-Range Escort Fighter" (particularly pages 34-35) and "Mustang Designer: Edgar Schmued and the P-51 (particularly chapter 6). In the literature, light or lightweight fighters are efficient, lower cost, almost always single engine fighters (the F-5 being the only exception I know of). They are not always the very lightest, but they tend to be lightweight for the mission ( such as the P-51 being the lightest American escort fighter). They bring the most destruction to enemy forces per dollar of any style of fighter, which is why they are strategically important. Not only did the P-51's design team develop it as a lightweight fighter from start to finish, but in the modern literature it is also so recognized. It is Wikipedia policy that in technical fields like aircraft design that the modern literature should not only be included, but that it has higher weight. That is why it is not valid to criticize the modern literature as "revisionist history" as Binkster has recently done.

How is it that you guys manage to team up with such perfect timing, when nobody typically has any input to this article for months? Is this apparent backchannel communication a senior editor only privilege? I would like to get in on this monitoring of my inputs and the communications channel that allows for this cooperation to try to generate local consensus. PhaseAcer (talk) 21:35, 22 December 2019 (UTC)

Conspiracy theory dashed: I'm not in communication with other editors except via public talk page discussions and the occasional "thank" button pushed.

The basic problem here is that you're cherry-picking a very few sources that support your notion, and ignoring the huge mass of literature which portrays the P-51 as a standard American fighter of WWII. And the supporting references don't really say what you think they are saying. Binksternet (talk) 08:44, 23 December 2019 (UTC)

How COULD people notice changes to pages that haven't had any for months? Help:Watchlist. (Hohum ^@) 11:30, 23 December 2019 (UTC)

Binkster, whole books such as "The Pentagon Paradox" are devoted to this subject, so for me to even summarize it will require you to be patient enough to spend a few minutes reading the below, and then thinking about it, instead of just claiming that I am wrong. Here I am presenting authoritative references specifically identifying the P-51 as a lightweight fighter, and many more on lightweight fighters in general. You repeatedly make comments that there is a large mass of literature presenting the P-51 as a "standard" fighter, under the false assumption that this is distinct from a lightweight fighter in the WWII context. I have asked you several times now to identify those references, but you have so far not provided any. I am doubtful that they exist, as I have done my homework in this material, and I am not finding any references that define "standard" WWII fighter and claim that to be distinct from a single engine, highly efficient, lightweight WWII fighter.

I do understand why the situation is confusing. Most references do not address the efficiency of fighter aircraft in a combat performance sense, which is closely related to the light vs heavy issue. This is particularly true of older references. They are usually filled with airplane worship and pretty pictures, and when they address combat performance at all it is via vague qualitative statements. I believe that is what causes this perception that the P-51 is a "standard" fighter. It is architecturally similar to several other highly efficient fighters that were made in high volume, such as the Spitfire, Bf 109, and Zero. But, in the modern literature, all these fighters are lightweight fighters, and it is Wikipedia policy that in technical fields like aircraft design that the modern literature carries higher weight. And, strong referencing can be shown that all these WWII fighter designers clearly understood they were designing highly efficient and specifically lightweight fighters. I have given two strong ones completely devoted to the design of the Mustang. Willy Messerschmitt was similar with his innovative lightweight design of the Bf 109, as described by the three references given in the Bf 109 article, particularly "Messerschmitt Bf 109, Versions B-E", by Cross and Scarborough. For the Zero, see "Zero: Combat and Development History of Japan's Legendary Mitsubishi A6M Zero Fighter", by Robert Mikesh. In this reference see in particular pages 15-21 on the lightweight fighter definition and design of the Zero, where extreme measures were taken to minimize weight. Chief designer Jiro Horikoshi is quoted on p. 15 as saying that just 100 lbs was critical in that he was designing a fighter with the qualities of a samurai sword. The Spitfire was derived from racing aircraft, and carried not an extra pound more than necessary for its mission.

It seems that in some editors' minds, because all these fighters were successful and popular, that they are "standard" fighters and distinct from "lightweight" fighters. There is a perception that lightweight fighters are specialty very light, gimmicky fighters with very limited applicability. That was the unreferenced position of this article 3 years ago. I had many arguments with other editors who claimed they "just knew" what a lightweight fighter was, and it was basically a toy fighter. However, that position finally collapsed when I brought the huge body of literature on lightweight fighters that now supports this article (which is far bigger than just Sprey's work), and no editor was able to ever bring any countering literature that could support even a minority view backing their position that light fighters are restricted to be at the very low end of the weight range, so low that they cannot be work horse fighters because they are too limited in range, performance, and weapons load. The literature that actually addresses the subject all concludes that lightweight and light fighters are the same thing, and that they are highly efficient, almost always single engine fighters, with only the features necessary to perform their mission. By example these fighters tend to be about half the weight and cost of heavy fighters (P-51 compared to P-38, F-16 compared to F-15). Fighters in this class include the Spitfire, Bf 109, Mustang, F-86, F-5, F-16, JAS 39 Grippen, MiG-15, MiG-17, and MiG-21. All these fighters are lightweight fighters, and as they are or were popular work horses they could also be called "standard" fighters. Those two terms strongly overlap.

The question may be asked, why is it important to be clear about this in Wikipedia fighter aircraft articles? Why is PhaseAcer making a big deal about this? I am taking this position for three reasons. First, it is the clear majority view of the more advanced literature on fighter design and combat operations research that highly efficient single engine lightweight fighters are "light fighters", and that these fighters when properly designed have superb combat performance, generally better than heavy fighters and far better on a per dollar basis. Our job as editors is to report and summarize literature, and that is what the literature says (find me any that says differently, and I will support its inclusion). Second, these fighters have had enormous historical influence, and continue to do so today. Using the P-51 as an example, it was five times as efficient as the heavy P-38 in kills per dollar. And, it was so much better at long range bomber escort that it drastically altered the bomber campaign in the ETO. Before the P-51 was deployed as an escort fighter, the United States was literally on the verge of halting the day bombing campaign due to unsustainable losses due to the poor protection provided by the P-47 and P-38. If you take into account that every bomber the P-51 saved cost as much as 4 to 6 P-51's, saved the lives of 10 bomber crewmen, and allowed that crew to continue its mission of destroying enemy ground targets and bringing the most destructive war in human history to an end, the P-51's combat effect per dollar had to be 10X to 20X greater than the P-38. That is THE most important thing about the P-51, and should be highlighted here and in its own article. Third, the much higher combat efficiency of lightweight fighters as exemplified by the P-51 is a strong lesson for procurement going forward. I am a former U.S. Marine, lifelong private pilot, and career engineer who would like to see the truth told in Wikipedia military aviation articles. If we don't tell that truth with due to false presentations or with deliberate omissions, then we are allowing Wikipedia to function as a propaganda organ with regards to fighter aviation. What I am presenting is both the truth, and backed strongly by the literature of the field. PhaseAcer (talk) 18:10, 23 December 2019 (UTC)

I understand all the reasoning here, but that doesn't matter, because all editors' opinions don't matter when adding to any article. The fact that all this needs to be explained in such length is proof of SYNTH, or even OR. The only thing that's needed is to show the majority of sources specifically call it "light" (not just some sources at some times, and not just a lack of calling it "standard"). Present that, and we must call it a light fighter in the article. Without that, we must not. Anything else is a waste of time here. --A D Monroe III^(talk) 23:49, 23 December 2019 (UTC)

Binkster, upon your request I have presented my references in detail, and there is no rational discussion or counter-references coming back from you. Are you ever going to present any of the "mass of references" you keep claiming present the P-51 as a non-lightweight "standard" fighter? PhaseAcer (talk) 22:43, 23 December 2019 (UTC)

Ok, Without using a wall of text, provide references with page numbers that unequivocally describe specific world war 2 fighters as "light or lightweight fighters" (per the context of this article), without any additional commentary from you on how to interpret the source. (Hohum ^@) 00:14, 24 December 2019 (UTC)

• TL;DR

I still see "light fighter" as something of a misnomer, compared to "lighter fighter". Light fighters have existed since the outset (the Spitfire, Bf109 and Zero most obviously) - yet we're not describing them here. Because the concept we describe here really has to begin as a reaction against heavy fighters, partly for being heavy but mostly for being over-complex.

In what way is the P-51 a "simplification" or a "lightening" of another aircraft? It's flush riveted, which puts the manufacturing cost up, even if we write off the development cost of the wing design itself. The engine is the same as anything else of the time. The task to which it was applied, that of an escort fighter, even if not what it was originally developed for, is at the cutting edge of contemporary performance.

We might see the Hawker Fury as a "light fighter" in our sense here (compared to the Tempest, Tornado, Typhoon) although that ended up navalised and heavier.

Also, if I'm being accused of backchannel communication, a revisionist and a propagandist, then I'm holding out for the letter of WP:BURDEN. There seems to be one source here, a throwaway comment in a book which is usually seen as deliberately contrarian. Andy Dingley (talk) 15:25, 24 December 2019 (UTC)

Hohum, here are the references you ask for. First, from the most authoritative book in print on the DESIGN STRATEGY of the P-51 design team: “Development of the P-51 Long-Range Escort Fighter”, p. 34, "Breaking away from large and heavy designs, Edgar Schmued led America and perhaps the world during World War Two in creating the concept of the lightweight fighter". On this same page, "Schmued's XP-51 was one of the first aircraft designed from the start with a mind to making light weight a modern goal in fighter design." The author Paul Ludwig is not a lightweight fighter promoter. He's a Naval aviator and career professional pilot and author who has done a a better job researching the design of the P-51 than anyone else, based on WWII primary references.

Next, from the also authoritative book "Mustang Designer: Edgar Schmued and the P-51", see all of Chapter 6, pages 138 to 147. A key quote: P. 140 where General Hap Arnold gave the approval to make the Mustang even lighter, "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 of the British load factors and design requirements and our design improvements, we actually whittled 600 pounds off the empty weight of the airplane..." The design team then went on to even lighter weights in the P-51H, which went into volume production, and the XP-51J, which was lighter still. From start to finish, the P-51 was a lightweight fighter design program.

As for other contemporary WWII top designers, Willy Messerschmitt was similar with his innovative lightweight design of the Bf 109, as described by the three references given in the Bf 109 article, particularly "Messerschmitt Bf 109, Versions B-E", by Cross and Scarborough, pages 56-66. For the Zero, see "Zero: Combat and Development History of Japan's Legendary Mitsubishi A6M Zero Fighter", by Robert Mikesh. In this reference see in particular pages 15-21 on the lightweight fighter definition and design of the Zero, where extreme measures were taken to minimize weight. Chief designer Jiro Horikoshi is quoted on p. 15 as saying that just 100 lbs was critical in that he was designing a fighter with the qualities of a samurai sword.

Andy, you seem to be complaining about the cost of flush riveting on the P-51. It's cost was 52% that of the P-38, and 60% that of the P-47. Its combat performance was far better than both. But, what I keep getting is "No fair showing the actual combat statistics, and double no fair showing the professional references that explain why that happened".

All: There is no precise industry and literature definition on exactly what a lightweight or heavyweight fighter is. The best we can do is present what literature there is that addresses these issues. They are of national strategic level importance, and do need to be presented. The modern literature presents lightweights as primarily single engine highly efficient fighters, and heavyweights as usually twin engine fighters that weigh and cost about twice as much. In terms of how well that is researched here, note that this article now has 145 references, a large number of them being professionally authored. In contrast, the Heavy fighter article has 3 pitiful references in total, one of them being an old survey or coffee table book, one of them an old book on the WWII Bf 110, and one being a 1932 newspaper article that is completely irrelevant.

Now note these quotes from the heavy fighter article: 1. "Another 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. A complex and advanced design for the early 1940s, the P-38 experienced technical problems in its initial deployments but these issues were solved in subsequent variants and it proved adaptable to undertake multiple roles including fighter escort, reconnaissance (as the F-4 and F-5 variants of which over 1,200 were built), and fighter-bomber. As an escort fighter, the P-38 followed B-17 Flying Fortress raids deep into German-held Europe where it was able to hold its own with smaller and lighter German fighters." The truth is that the P-38 was outperformed by a factor of 2.5 in enemy planes destroyed per sortie compared to the P-51, and by a factor of 4.9 dollar for dollar in fighter combat. The performance of the P-51 was over 10X better when you count the value of the better bomber protection. The P-38 escort performance was so bad that the U.S. was on the verge of stopping the bomber campaign, and only the arrival of the P-51 changed that. Next quote 2. "Although numerous modern fighters could be called "heavy", with regard to their weight, the term is generally no longer used. 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." Think about that for 5 seconds. Actually, the fact that a cheap lightweight fighter can use missiles to shoot down any fighter makes lightweight fighters more important than ever. And far from the terms lightweight and heavy not being used, they are used far more in the modern literature from the 1980's forward than they ever were before.

Both of those key statements in the heavy fighter article are false and unreferenced. They are in fact outright LIES. Yet, here you guys are attacking the content of this article with 145 references, and every significant statement in it with one or more references. Why is that? Why are you not ripping that drivel in the heavy fighter article to shreds, as it deserves? PhaseAcer (talk) 20:46, 26 December 2019 (UTC)

"Without using a wall of text". WP:TLDR. (Hohum ^@) 00:04, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

• There is no precise industry and literature definition on exactly what a lightweight or heavyweight fighter is.

Yes, there is. That would be the NATO definition, for the NBMR-1 competition. Which is covered in some detail, and with great authority, in Hooker's Not Much of an Engineer, relating to coverage of the Orpheus (although the Gnat was unsuccessful in the competition, all of the shortlist entries used the Orpheus).

Or we can just make something up, per WP:OR and WP:NEOLOGISM. In which the Bristol Fighter weighs less than the F-14, thus becomes a "light fighter". Andy Dingley (talk) 00:25, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

Andy, I don't know you and I did not call you a propagandist. I apologize if that impression was left.

But, this article in the state it was in 4 years ago was effectively propaganda, as the Heavy fighter article still is, whether that was/is deliberate or not. It took the unreferenced position that light fighters were at the very low end of the weight spectrum, basically toy fighters, and that they had very little practical use. That was a lie that was the complete opposite of what the professional literature reports, which is that lightweight fighters are practical fighters, dollar for dollar the most effective fighters, and often best plane for plane as well (as were the P-51 and the F-16). It took me months of arguing and dozens of references to get that changed to reflect reality and references. Where were you with WP:BURDEN then? Where were all the complaints about referencing then? Where are the complaints about the unreferenced and flat wrong heavy fighter article now? PhaseAcer (talk) 03:36, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

The NBFR-1 competition is for the air to ground role. The majority of literature (for example, see "The Pentagon Paradox" and Sprey's effectiveness report) are for the air to air mission. PhaseAcer (talk) 03:36, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

Hohum: Here is a little more detail for you on your request for specific references on efficient single engine WWII fighters being lightweight fighters. In "Messerschmitt Bf 109 Versions B-E, Cross and Scarborough, on pages 8 and 56 are direct statements that it was conceived and designed as a lightweight fighter. The rest of chapter 5 from pages 56 to 73 is devoted to the design trade-offs and methods used to achieve the lightweight fighter design requirement. They were just as extreme as the designers of the Zero were, for example avoiding self sealing tanks and using centrally mounted weapons and the minimum necessary quantity of weapons to allow the lightest structure and highest agility. Though the fighter effectiveness criteria was not formalized until the 1960's, the designers of the P-51, Bf-109, Zero, and F8F Bearcat were all intentionally designing lightweight fighters (other direct references above) and had an intuitive understanding of lightweight fighter virtues. From "The Pentagon Paradox", page 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." Author James Stevenson then quotes and even reprints primary WWII documentation showing this. PhaseAcer (talk) 05:46, 28 December 2019 (UTC)

"Though the fighter effectiveness criteria was not formalized until the 1960's". End of discussion. Anachronistically applying something to where it wasn't used. Otherwise we'd have articles about ancient Roman Blitzkrieg. (Hohum ^@) 01:14, 31 December 2019 (UTC)

Hohum, you are unaware of how careful a researcher I am. About 95% of the material in this article is my contribution, as are almost all the references. The article was previously an unreferenced disaster filled with false and denigrating statements about lightweight fighters. It took hundreds of hours to correct, arguing with other editors every step of the way. But, the funny thing about those struggles is that no editor was ever able to bring a single reference that could disprove or that even disagreed with anything stated here. Same thing for the well researched material in the fighter weapons section I wrote for the Fighter aircraft article.

You may not like what the references say. But, we are bound to report them, and what I am reporting about the P-51 references is exactly what those high quality references say. I keep asking you guys for counter-references, and it is the same as before--zero counter-references. Opinions, which I am happy to analyze and discuss, but no references. PhaseAcer (talk) 04:11, 1 January 2020 (UTC)

WP:IDHT. Your comment is not an answer to mine. (Hohum ^@) 16:23, 1 January 2020 (UTC)

On the contrary, Hohum, I am directly addressing it. Your comment says "end of discussion" because the fighter effectiveness criteria was not formalized until the 1960's. But, what the references that actually address the issue say is that the advantages of lightweight fighters were fully understood before WWII, and were deliberately incorporated into the more efficient and successful WWII single engine designs. Some of these references predate the wide publication of the fighter effectiveness criteria in the early 1980's. Others are later, but that does not diminish their authority as references. In fact, by Wikipedia policy, it increases their weight. Fighter design and combat operations research are technical subjects. It is specific Wikipedia policy that in technical subjects, later references with newer analysis better supported by data have higher weight. PhaseAcer (talk) 18:33, 1 January 2020 (UTC)

Ok, trying again, but this is getting tiresome. Forcing an anachronistic term into a time where it was not used, is not appropriate. (Hohum ^@) 18:38, 1 January 2020 (UTC)

OK, trying again: “Development of the P-51 Long-Range Escort Fighter”, published 2003, p. 34, "Breaking away from large and heavy designs, Edgar Schmued led America and perhaps the world during World War Two in creating the concept of the lightweight fighter". And from "Messerschmitt Bf 109 Versions B - E", 1972, p. 56, "Its simplicity and economy of construction was a by-product of its original inception as a lightweight fighter". From "The Pentagon Paradox", 1993 (a particularly detailed and well researched book on the topic of fighter effectiveness and procurement), p. 42, "Most of the benefits of lightweight fighters--lower cost, greater numbers numbers for equal dollars, and higher performance--were known as far back as World War II". On. 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." On page 62, "Fighter aircraft like the P-51 Mustang, F8F Bearcat, and the F-16 Falcon are examples of aircraft 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""

You apparently have a problem with the references, but that is what these authoritative references say about the design strategy and history of this class of WWII fighter. Disagreements with references are not addressed by you tossing out the phrase "not appropriate", which is nothing but a poor attempt at deflection. They are addressed by bringing counter-references. Please bring yours, and then they can be weighted and properly included in Wikipedia, along with the references I am bringing. PhaseAcer (talk) 04:16, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

Policy on Facts, False Statements, References, and Consensus

Moved from Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Aircraft § Policy on Facts, False Statements, References, and Consensus

 – — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 17:59, 3 January 2020 (UTC)

I believe we have quite a credibility problem in some Wikipedia fighter aircraft articles, where in some cases important facts and authoritative references are being strongly suppressed, and in others fundamentally important false statements are allowed with no references at all. This occurs because of the power of local consensus, where it seems well referenced truth is swept under the rug if a few editors say so. Let me lay the history of this issue clearly on the table, and then ask my questions about this situation as it pertains to Wikipedia policy. I apologize for the length it takes to explain the full issues, but the pattern here has been many years in the making.

I have found the literature of fighter effectiveness to be an interesting area. This interest has led to me writing most of the material in the Light fighter article and also the fighter weapons section in the main Fighter aircraft article.

The fighter effectiveness criteria first formalized in the 1960’s is a way of evaluating likely fighter aircraft combat performance, and maximizing that performance in the design process. It was developed from military operations research as a professional way to architect fighters to deliver maximum kill ratios and combat return on budget investment. It contends that the design of fighters should emphasize (in order of importance) advantages in surprise (in 70% or more of shootdowns surprise is the dominant factor), numbers at the point of combat (lower cost, higher reliability, higher endurance), maneuverability (for that fraction of the time that surprise does not settle the issue), and weapons (meaning ability to reliably get split second kills when in position). This was the deliberate strategy of the F-16, now the world’s most popular fighter. It is also the reason the P-51 had such superior combat performance compared to the P-47 and P-38. The record shows it is a quite successful strategy, as might be expected when fundamental science and engineering are correctly applied.

As a design or engineering guide, this criteria tends to lead to smaller and more efficient fighter designs, though there can be specialized exceptions. In particular small size gives a strong advantage in that the fighter has a lower visual and radar profile, and statistically achieves surprise more often (this has been scientifically studied and reported on by both Navy Top Gun and the Air Force Fighter Weapons School, as well as many other advanced references). Smaller fighters also consume less of critical resources, and cost less (fighter cost is directly proportional to weight), so that the same budget buys more of them and increases the numbers advantage.

This has been reported extensively in the more professional fighter aircraft literature from the early 1980’s to now, with effectively zero literature that disagrees. In this literature the term “lightweight fighter” has come to be a synonym for lower cost / more efficient fighters that conform to the criteria. This actually started just before and during WWII, when the literature that discusses the issue reports that the designers of the P-51, Zero, Bf 109, and Bearcat all had the goal of designing specifically lightweight and efficient fighters that in a strategic sense satisfy the criteria. The fighter effectiveness criteria was not formalized then, but its basic features were understood before WWII. It was the foundation philosophy of Edgar Schmued, who was the design leader of the P-51, F-86, and F-5, and also of Willy Messerschmitt for the BF 109, and of Zero lead designer Jiro Horikoshi. Leroy Grumman, the founder of Grumman, then adopted this philosophy of fighter design for the F8F Bearcat. It continued through the USAF Lightweight Fighter Program that resulted in the F-16 and F-18, after which a large body of modern literature emphasizing it was published.

As an engineer, there is nothing mysterious or contentious about this to me. It is simply a useful design technique to optimize performance and return on investment, philosophically identical to the design optimization strategies of many other types of products. In an engineering and operations research sense here, it means putting guns and missiles in just the right place to score maximum kills for minimum resource expenditure. But, for some reason it is a very contentious subject to many Wikipedia military aviation editors. The struggles I had getting the facts and literature on this into the light fighter article four years ago were almost unbelievable. At that time the light fighter article had the false and unreferenced point of view that light fighters (the same thing as lightweight fighters in the modern literature) were rejected by military leaders, not successful in combat, and had fundamental weaknesses in performance, armament, and range (though the F-16 and P-51 had the longest range of any American fighters at the time they were introduced, and the lightest of the WWII bunch, the Zero, had longer range than the P-51). A large body of literature reported the opposite of what the light fighter article originally stated, so after bringing those references by the dozens I was finally able to tell the truth. Despite massive complaints about the material, no editor was ever able to bring a single counter-reference.

Part of that truth is that the references report light fighters to be efficient, almost always single engine fighters (the F-5 being the only significant exception) that by example tend to average about half the weight and cost of heavy usually twin-engine fighters (the P-47, F-105, and F-35 being large single engine exceptions). The literature does not define light fighters as being only at the very lowest weight of their era (like the Zero and the Folland Gnat), nor does it define “standard” fighters as strategically distinct from lightweight fighters. These are both the strong opinions of some editors, but those opinions are not based on any references that they are able to bring. I have over a hundred references on this subject, and I find no such statements.

Now we get to the current issue and how it bears on policy. I have been attempting to bring two paragraphs about the P-51 to the P-51 and Light fighter articles. One paragraph reports its design genesis as a specifically lightweight fighter in the strategic sense, which the references which deal with the issue directly report as its fundamental design strategy. Its design team considered it to be a conceptually lightweight fighter just as reported above, and throughout the program worked to bring out still lighter versions. The other paragraph was to report its combat results compared to the [P-47]] and P-38, which it excelled in kills per sortie, and far excelled in kills per dollar. Typically for a well-designed lightweight fighter, it was barely half the cost of its heavyweight escort fighter competitors, and achieved superior per plane combat results.

I have been blocked on doing this by several other editors, in particular Binksternet. The claim has been made that the P-51 is not a lightweight fighter in a strategic sense, and is instead a “standard fighter” (an undefined term), though this is the opposite of what the references that classify the P-51 directly say. The claim is also made that there are references that report this, but in my repeated requests to show those references, not a single such reference has been identified. In comparison, I have brought 5 strong references on P-51 classification as a lightweight (2 of them being design history references totally focused on the P-51), and several others that casually discuss it, along with a much larger body of literature about efficient fighters in general with the same defining features as the P-51. It is of course true that many references do not address the classification of the P-51, but references that do not address the issue at all are not references on the issue. As to the opposition to reporting the combat statistics, I can see no reason other than it makes the P-47 and the P-38 look bad. Unfortunately for their place in history, in comparison to the P-51, they were bad. The P-51 scored 5X the kills per dollar of the P-38, and if you take into account its superior bomber protection all the way to the target and back, its combat effect per dollar had to be more than 10X greater. As reported in the references, it saved the air war over Germany.

In comparison to this reference suppression, the Heavy fighter article, of which Binksternet is an active editor, makes false and completely unreferenced statements about the fundamental nature of heavy fighters. For example, it says “Although numerous modern fighters could be called "heavy", with regard to their weight, the term is generally no longer used. 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.” This is the complete opposite of what a large body of literature, which is not referenced in the heavy fighter article, reports on the issue of light vs heavy. I have not seen a single counter-reference to this literature. And as for whether this distinction matters, the lightweight F-16 has gotten the better of the twice the cost heavy F-15 in every trial that has been made public. The references report the F-15 as excellent, but the F-16 as even better, for half the price. When you can buy a better air force for half the price, that certainly does matter a LOT to the people who sign the checks. Whole books, ignored in the heavy fighter article, are devoted to this subject. This is an issue where hundreds of billions of dollars and national security are actively at stake, so this unreferenced false statement that has been in place for years and is at complete odds with the literature could be considered as propaganda. In allowing this, it is clear there is a very non-neutral double standard in place.

That brings me to my questions.

1. Why is this highly non-neutral view in place among many editors on the issue of light vs. heavy? Why is it actively supported among the editors, as opposed to honestly reporting the references? The way the references are suppressed and false statements supported on this subject rises to the level of Wikipedia:Vandalism and is completely at odds with normal Wikipedia policy. The virulent hostility is so intense on the issue it is as if many of the editors lost their jobs on the F-15 program when the F-16 was procured. For example, despite a mountain of references and no counter-references, I am not allowed to mention weight or effectiveness in the main Fighter aircraft article, or even provide a pointer to the Light fighter article to explain these critically important issues.

2. Is it the policy of Wikipedia senior leadership that the requirements for neutrality and references are completely overwhelmed by local consensus? Is vandalism of the encyclopedia no longer vandalism if a set of editors support it? I am not seeking to be sarcastic in that question, but to get to the bottom of if that is the way it really is. If the leadership does support consensus over all else, I might as well stop spending time and money on fighter plane references to report in Wikipedia, since consensus without references will be used to block truthful and well referenced reporting on important issues when some editors dislike that truth.

I note that on this particular P-51 issue I am bringing a stack of strong references, and the opposing editors are bringing no references at all. According to the definition of consensus, it is based not on pure numbers but also references and the strength of the argument. When the opposing editors can bring no references but only opinion that is at complete odds with the references, then according to policy the weight of that argument is supposed to be zero.

This is quite a fundamental issue to Wikipedia, and it needs to be settled, by high level arbitration if necessary (in my opinion, the higher the better). If local consensus refuses to acknowledge the references on points some editors dislike, and substitutes unreferenced and false statements on points they support, then the credibility of Wikipedia on a very important military subject is destroyed. At that point, Wikipedia will have become a propaganda organ on the fighter aircraft subject. PhaseAcer (talk) 17:14, 1 January 2020 (UTC)

Hi, I have looked briefly through your very weighty post and some of the linked material and have a few comments to make. If I may say so, your enthusiasm for your subject is far greater than your skill as an editor. First, it is my strong experience that editors who post walls of text in discussions are not focusing on the issues raised by others but on a braindump of their own point of view - nobody ever reads them right through. Boy, do you post walls of text. You really need to cool down and understand that your enthusiasm is drowning any possible merit to your case. Your edits to the P-51 and light fighter articles do go beyond the usual perception and are not as well supported by RS as you claim. Just because a fighter is lighter than usual (by American standards) and some author somewhere plays on that fact, does not put it in the "light fighter" class. I would suggest that in the specific article discussions you focus down on specific criticisms, quote RS as to the facts you are aware of, and explain in a one-liner how that quote applies. That's one short paragraph per criticism. Be prepared to learn something from the replies. If you mistrust a claim in say the Heavy fighter article, then by all means tag it with template:Citation needed and maybe open a discussion on the article talk page. Once you resort to long rants or veiled backbiting, you have lost the plot; even if you think we are unreasonable bigots, we do not. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 19:42, 1 January 2020 (UTC)

Steelpillow, I knew I would catch the "wall of text" complaint, but felt it justified to put all the issues on the table. Now, as far as your evaluation of my skill as an editor, please read the light fighter article now, and from four years ago before I started on it, when it was a junk article filled with unreferenced denigration of the lightweight fighter concept. Then read the deeply researched fighter weapons section of the fighter aircraft article, which is key information for understanding fighter combat that was completely absent before I made that contribution. Have you contributed anything of comparable quality? If you think so, I would like to read it. PhaseAcer (talk) 05:33, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

Yes, you research well and make many good contributions, and I thank you for that - I am sure we all do. If you did not, I would be less inclined spend time offering what advice I can now. I think the bit about us that you do not yet understand is that on Wikipedia, editorial skill is as much about community interaction as it is about banging down words. Are you really so naive as to think that telling us we all indulge in "proven non-neutral consensus with no references", or challenging my own abilities as if I am some kind of adversary, is going to help your case? No, we are trying to help you here. The simple truth is that your enthusiasm for the lightweight case has run away with itself and you need to accept it needs reining in a little. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 08:24, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

Well Steel, you and NiD.29 (please see my replies to him below) are correct that I don't know the techniques to bring about consensus here. I am an engineer, trained in the scientific method, and that is mostly how I approach writing here. I have spent hundreds of hours researching the literature of the field for the lightweight fighter article, and every significant point made there is backed up by multiple high quality references, many written by outstanding professionals who have spent their entire lives in this subject matter. In my field high quality references and experimental data (the combat record in this case) are revered as essential tools to understanding reality. Here they are quite often simply dismissed by editors who cannot bring a single reference to support their view, and instead hide behind "consensus". Other than explain the references, which results in the "walls of words" so disliked here, it is true that I DON'T know how to go about getting editors who apparently won't read the references to acknowledge them. So, though I am carefully researching every point, I guess I am a lousy editor in that sense. If you know how to get them to read the references, you would be my hero as an editor. PhaseAcer (talk) 14:54, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

Rich, claiming bias after swamping lightweight fighter with an overwhelming American bias, and an overly technical treatise looking at American aircraft that could only be claimed to be small by Americans, but which were very much large/heavy fighters by any other country's standards. I pretty much wrote that off as not worth the effort to reign in.

For comparison purposes, the "lightweight" P-51 was 3,500 kg empty, compared to 2,600 kg for the Hurricane, 2,100 kg for the Dewoitine D.520, and 1,900 kg for the Ki-43. Not so light. The Fokker G.I twin-engine heavy fighter weighed 200 kg less than the P-51. None of these are lightweight fighters, and only the most parochial (or political) source would ever suggest the same for the P-51. Not all sources are equal, especially when tied up in politics, as is almost anything involving an American procurement program, as those claims are.

True lightweight fighters include the Curtiss-Wright CW-21 at 1,500 kg (less than half the P-51's weight) and the VEF I-16 at 1,100 kg - near contemporaries of the P-51, and all of them disproving the lighter is better theory as they were without exception, failures. What constitutes light varies over time as the weight of fighters increased so each group must be compared to conventional fighters from the same era, and with the same role so of course no single weight is remotely possible. Most of what was dumped into lightweight fighter belongs in Lightweight Fighter program, which deserves a mention, but should never have become the main focus of the lightweight fighter page.

The best course of action I have found when it comes to false statements, because so many are so common and well enough known, is to leave the statement but add conditions. ie : Despite repeated claims by the Americans that the Japanese called the F4U Corsair the "whistling death" the Japanese referred to it as the Sikorsky due to the brief merger of Vought and Sikorsky before the war. (with the latter part referenced) The false statement needs to remain precisely because is so well known and will simply be re-added, but it CAN be countered with references, preferably from multiple reliable secondary sources. I have seen similar myths successfully nullified this way, although as the field of aviation is rife with them, particularly when the copy writers in WW2 had to fill up space with their imaginations. - NiD.29 (talk) 21:58, 1 January 2020 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Wall of text applies - Ahunt (talk) 03:33, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

The OP needs to read WP:NOT among other pages. Serious confusion over how wikipedia works, complete with the standard right wing trope of "senior leadership" and claims of being censored. Sigh, just another Karen. - NiD.29 (talk) 04:14, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

You are right, NiD.29, I DON'T know how it works. That is why I am asking the key question as to whether proven non-neutral consensus with no references overwhelms the policies on neutrality and references. If the claim among the Wikipedia military aviation editors is that it does, then my next question would be whether that is agreed to by the senior leadership of Wikipedia. If it is, then with that being their position, the references can be ignored and the false statements stacked up to the ceiling, and I will have no further complaints. So, I await a direct answer to that question. PhaseAcer (talk) 04:43, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

First, there is no "senior leadership". There is just us. All standards, rules, norms and processes are by mutual consent of wikipedia editors, and the vast majority come from decades of experience in resolving conflict while attempting to produce the most reliable set of facts possible. Most of them exist for very good reasons and are not likely to be changed.

To change a policy, position or something contentious on a page, you present your arguments on the most appropriate talk page, and there are many such specialized pages for different issues. Usually the talk page for the page itself is the best place to start. If more voices are needed, post a request here for people to comment. The discussion can start on a personal page as well if there are only a small number of editors involved. If it affects several pages, both this page, and the aviation project talk pages may be more appropriate, indeed, since this is not about an individual aircraft it should be on the WP:WikiProject Aviation talk page. It is best to raise an issue in only one place though. The group will then hash it out pros and cons. Whether a change is made or not is never about the number of arguments or of people arguing though, but about the validity and solidity of the arguments made and their implications. There are rules for how these affairs are conducted. It helps to keep the discussion to one narrow very specific topic, as too much at once makes the resulting multiple discussions hard to track. One discussion topic at a time, which also reduces the chances of a wall of text. (sorry) This is where doing a lot of reading comes in handy.

Wikipedia is not about the "truth", or about perfect accuracy, but a reflection of what has been published, ideally put into context with a minimum of errors. No original research (OR) is allowed though, nor are primary sources, however most of what is needed shouldn't require original research or even primary sources. The bleeding edge research gets done elsewhere. We are not writing university dissertations here either - or advertising copy, or providing PR for companies or government policies.

The most important part of any page is the references. Far more than anything that is in the text, which should ideally summarize the sources. Having lots of different references is also necessary as we don't want to paraphrase a single source. When sources disagree, it needs to be mentioned in the text in the spirit of neutrality, another major wikipedia goal. Neutrality is about providing nuanced balance. Equal space is only given to ideas with equal recognition of merit by the experts of the field. A fringe source does not balance a mainstream source or worse, nullify it. Fringe positions do not merit equal space on the page either. Neutrality also means that a page should NOT focus exclusively on an American (or British or Russian) point of view for a topic that spans many countries to the exclusion of others. No blogs, self-published works or discussion board comments should ever be used as a reference either. As the page is improved, marginal references should be replaced whenever possible, and generally, the newer the better, as most older reference works (from the 1970s or earlier) contain outdated information.

Wikipedia is written for a general audience. Someone with no prior knowledge should be able to read and understand any page, so technical details are kept as simple and as clear as possible with a minimum of unexplained jargon, which should then be wikilinked.

Editing wikipedia is a never ending learning experience - not just for the content, but also the vast number of agreed upon rules, whose explanations span thousands of pages. Don't worry though - break them and someone will probably let you know - even if only by reverting what you did.

As I tried to explain, the general rule for citations is that they are required for any statement that is not widely accepted or known. Thus, specifications and most claims (ie: "this aircraft has never suffered a structural failure") need references, however saying the AT-6 was a trainer does not as it is commonly known and not likely to be contested. Technically it should still be provided with a reference though. Since most of the false statements made on wiki pages fall into the myth category, they are often well known, and are often the only thing many people will remember, and therefore don't normally need references. The refutation, because it is not as well known, requires references though, as would any statement that could be contentious. - NiD.29 (talk) 08:50, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

NiD.29, I appreciate that thoughtful and detailed reply. I have two problems in presenting this material. First, as an engineer who has published many technical articles, I have never encountered outright lies, or the supporting of lies, or the suppression of factual information, in any publishing I have been involved in before contributing to Wikipedia fighter aviation articles. In my profession, telling or supporting lies means you are out of the profession. Technical professionals also understand that experimental data exposing truth must be acknowledged. This is the scientific method that we have been taught all through our education. In this case, the experimental data is the combat record that some editors are determined to suppress. Second, I have spent hundreds of hours researching and writing this material into the light fighter article, and I am bringing a stack of references on each major point. The editors who disagree that highly efficient single engine fighters are in fact "lightweight fighters" in the strategic sense seem to have not only not read the literature of the field, and have brought no references to support their view, but ignore the references I bring and claim their opinion carries more weight.

For example, here are some direct quotes from these references: “Development of the P-51 Long-Range Escort Fighter”, published 2003, p. 34, "Breaking away from large and heavy designs, Edgar Schmued led America and perhaps the world during World War Two in creating the concept of the lightweight fighter". And from "Messerschmitt Bf 109 Versions B - E", 1972, p. 56, "Its simplicity and economy of construction was a by-product of its original inception as a lightweight fighter". From "The Pentagon Paradox", 1993 (a particularly detailed and well researched book on the topic of fighter effectiveness and procurement), p. 42, "Most of the benefits of lightweight fighters--lower cost, greater numbers numbers for equal dollars, and higher performance--were known as far back as World War II". On. 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." On page 62, "Fighter aircraft like the P-51 Mustang, F8F Bearcat, and the F-16 Falcon are examples of aircraft 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""

My own skill as an editor does not extend to convincing other editors to accept truth and references, when they simply flatly refuse to do so, and believe that their "consensus" eliminates the requirement for them to bring references of their own. The "walls of words" that have been complained about are me trying and failing to get them to acknowledge the references. Presenting the references and explaining in detail are all I know how to do (because that is how I have been trained as an engineer, where facts and science dominate), and that is a complete failure here. PhaseAcer (talk) 13:49, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

The science world and the regular one in a nutshell. The evidence gathered by science overwhelmingly says something someone disagrees with, or is threatened by, and the lies flow forth. Vaccine denial, Global Warming denial, Evolution denial, etc etc. Each point must be refuted with enough weight it cannot be easily erased, without giving it too much space. Aviation is particularly bad as there were several periods when a considerable amount of deliberate misinformation was published, particularly regarding the capabilities and weaknesses of both one's own aircraft, and those of enemies. Much of this nonsense is still floating around in people's heads. A perusal of American aviation magazines in WW2 would leave you with the impression that the Japanese (and Russians) simultaneously were incapable of designing aircraft, meaning everything they had was a copy or second rate, yet, the Japanese were also nearly unbeatable in the air. American types that were covered were almost exclusively obscure types that saw limited use, or obsolete ones, with almost no coverage of any of the mainstays newer than the B-17. Official propaganda took over from there - victories were grossly exaggerated while heavy losses were countered with photos of shot up aircraft and claims about how much punishment a particular type could absorb and still get home (always a sign they were getting pummelled hard). A wide gap existed between the knowledge of senior officers, and the general public, ostensibly for security reasons, but the Germans knew much more than did the American public. Victory claims routinely exceed the number of possible opponents by a wide margin to justify kill loss ratios that make them look good, but are entirely fictional. There are too many boomers/silent gens who will defend the lies to the death though, hence why my history prof said history doesn't start until the last survivor is dead, because only then can the truth be allowed out. Older references are more likely to be repeating these lies, hence why I would rarely consult anything before the 70s, and even into the 2000s one must be very careful - and often trace back claims to a source, which too often turns out to be a government publication whose truthfulness cannot be counted on. — Preceding unsigned comment added by NiD.29 (talk • contribs)

As much as I really like Ludwig's book that you referenced above, he's talking nonsense when claiming that Schmued "led America and perhaps the world during World War Two in creating the concept of the lightweight fighter". Lightweight in comparison to the Corsair, Thunderbolt, and Hellcat, certainly, but there were plenty of American fighters of the period that had a far better claim to being "lightweight". So let's list most of the American fighters in service or under development in 39–42, shall we? P-51A, 6433lb; XF4U-1, 7460lb; XP-47B, 9189; P-43A, 5996; P-66, 5237; P-39C, 5070; P-40, 5367; F2A-1, 2785; XF4F-2, 4036; F6F-3, 9101. Aside from the three that I mentioned first, every single one of these fighters is lighter than the Mustang.

Part of the problem here is that most aviation writers will talk about lightweight in comparison to their contemporaries, but our category of Lightweight fighters includes aircraft from the 1930s and 1940s that were purposely designed to maximize speed and time to climb regardless of the consequent penalties to range, armament and general flexibility; in other words, interceptors. This definition starts to breakdown with the development of jets, radar and AAMs, but let's keep it simple for now by restricting the discussion to piston-engined aircraft. Both the Bf 109 and the Spitfire were designed as interceptors and both airframes struggled to accommodate the weight growth needed to satisfy the increases in range and armament desired by their operators over the course of the war. So I think that you're placing far too much weight on Ludwig's words, see WP:UNDUE, and confusing the concept/category of Lightweight fighters, with the relative comparison used by most writers.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 15:02, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

I agree entirely with Sturmvogel 66. One might add that while the Spitfire was lighter than the Hurricane, it was not therefore deemed to be a lightweight fighter. Nor would Ludwig's writing about the weight difference ever make it so. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 16:01, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

The concept of light fighters dates to WW1 so not an American idea at all, when the Nieuport 21 was developed as a lightweight version of the Nieuport 17 for long range escort missions - a lighter engine reduced wing loading and increased range slightly. In the 1920s and 30s, the French repeatedly attempted to get what they called the Jockey fighters to work - the culmination of that line being with the Caudron 714, however none of them were successful. In this case light weight was part of an attempt to reduce the cost of producing the aircraft, and generally compromised performance as they were usually built around lower-powered engines. Variants on this theme were built in the UK, Russia and elsewhere. The US got in on that trend much later with the Bell XP-77. There is such a thing as going too far though. At the same time, American designs were invariably overweight and lacked the ability to manoeuvre with their foreign contemporaries, which they offset by producing ever larger engines to drive them, until you get absurdities like the P-47. A reaction then set in to bring their aircraft back in line with what everyone else was building when they found them to be less than ideal for air combat (especially the P-38 and P-47) - creating the second type of "lightweight" fighter, but one that only exists in an American context. - NiD.29 (talk) 18:23, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

OK, we have a rational discussion here. To address it, I have to use a few words, as the issues are not so simple as to state in a sentence or two.

Paul Ludwig is giving excessive credit to Ed Schmued for creation of the lightweight fighter concept in the WWII timeframe. Schmued's contemporaries Willy Messerschmitt, Jiro Horikoshi (Zero), Reginald Mitchell (Spitfire), and Kurt Tank (Fw 190) were equally responsible for deliberately creating efficient, lightweight, lower cost fighters with just enough sophistication to be highly effective, but no excess weight or cost. Where Schmued really shines is that he extended this into the jet age with his deliberate lightweight designs of the F-86 and the F-5, both of which ran over much more expensive heavy fighters in trials of the 1960's. At 10% to 20% the cost of the F-14 and F-15, the F-5 traded nearly equally with them in extensive trials in the 1970's.

But, giving originator credit to Schmued is not the point in quoting that reference for the Mustang. The point is to document that Schmued UNDERSTOOD the lightweight fighter concept in the modern strategic sense (maximum combat performance and numbers per unit of budget), and deliberately and very successfully gave the Mustang those virtues. It was 52% the cost of the P-38, and 60% the cost of the P-47, and significantly better than both on a plane for plane basis. It is similarly not relevant to the Mustang's classification as a lightweight fighter that some other fighters were lighter than the Mustang. Some heavy fighters are heavier than the P-38, but it is not disputed that the P-38 is a heavy fighter.

According to the references, what makes a fighter a lightweight fighter in the strategic sense is not absolute weight. It is that it is designed to use minimum resources to achieve the mission. In the practical sense, this means single engine highly efficient fighters. These fighters are typically more effective plane for plane (due to surprise and maneuverability advantages), at about half the cost. For example, Bf 109 vs Bf 110 (one of the same two engines), P-51 vs P-38 (one of the same type of water cooled V-12 two engines of similar power), F-16 vs. F-15 (one of the same two engines) and JAS 39 Grippen vs F/A-18E/F Super Hornet (one of the same two engines). As a matter of pure design and combat operations research, this does not seem like it should be a contentious issue. I believe the reason it has become contentious is that aircraft manufacturers are fully aware that if a government is going to buy a certain fixed number of airplanes, then if those fighters are heavy twin engine planes, they will get to charge twice as much for them. Thus, some of those manufacturers have been selling the heavy fighter concept with every ounce of energy they possess, from before WWII to now. In modern times, hundreds of billions of dollars hinges on this, so the sales pitch gets pretty intense.

The lightweight highly efficient fighter is a strategically crucial concept, which is why I have worked hard to get it properly presented in Wikipedia. The P-51 is the most well documented and dramatic example of this high strategic value, as it literally saved the daytime air war over Germany. Until the generals relented and transferred the P-51 from the air to ground mission to the escort mission, the United States was losing the air war over Germany. It was on the verge of halting the bomber campaign over Germany due to unsustainable losses. But, the approximately 2X to 3X kills per sortie and 3X to 5X greater kills per dollar of the P-51 compared to the P-47 and P-38, and at least 10X greater total combat value per dollar due to its longer range escorting (it only used half the fuel per hour), totally altered the situation. Many months were shaved off the duration of the war, and tens of thousands of Allied lives saved, by giving up on heavy escorts and using the lightweight P-51 instead. That is the most important fact about the P-51, so it should be presented in the article. It is the combat stats that ultimately prove that point, which is why they should be included. PhaseAcer (talk) 18:22, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

Those are specific definitions for a single user at a single point in time. They are not universal, and the reasoning behind the Mustang is weak - it isn't that there are lighter fighters, it is that you have to get to around half the weight of the P-51 before anyone starts talking about them as being lightweight fighters - and there are twin engine heavy fighters that are lighter than it. Other than that one source, I have never encountered any writer referring to the P-51 as a lightweight fighter. Like the Bf 109, it was designed with the smallest airframe wrapped around the chosen engine, pilot and anticipated armament that they could get away with. That is not lightweight, which goes well below that, into using lighter, lower powered engines, for a second line fighter that is cheap. Two completely different conceptions, and only the latter has a substantial literature behind it. - NiD.29 (talk) 18:33, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

NiD, I have to disagree with you based on the literature and the critical reality of lightweight fighters being a strategically important issue at the national level.

Let's review the coincidences that just keep stacking up here that show non-neutrality. The light fighter article originally defined light fighters as very light niche fighters that were not workhorses and that were generally failures, which is the same false narrative being brought up now. That Wikipedia editor position is not based on ANY references. It is based on the few examples of ultralight and very light fighters, and the false and unreferenced declaration that the existence of these fighters precludes more capable fighters from ALSO being lightweight fighters (despite a deep stack of literature saying otherwise). The U.S. Air Force says otherwise with the Lightweight Fighter Program leading to the very capable workhorse F-16.

Concerning your statement that I only have one reference, I have three strong references defining the P-51 as a lightweight fighter, which are "Development of the P-51 Mustang Long-Range Escort Fighter", "Mustang Designer: Edgar Schmued and the P-51", and "The Pentagon Paradox", an outstanding reference by a career aviation journalist who was for 10 years editor of "The Topgun Journal" and who knows everyone in the business. The P-51 is also presented as a simple lightweight fighter and contrasted with the P-38 by General Walter Kross in his book "Military Reform: The High-Tech Debate in Tactical Air Forces". Pierre Sprey is not popular around here, but his book length report "Comparing the Effectiveness of Air-to-Air Fighters: F-86 to F-18 is a tour-de-force work, and considers the efficient single engine fighters of WWII as light fighters. The book "Zero: Combat and Development History of Japan's Legendary Mitsubishi A6M Zero Fighter" presents it as a lightweight fighter, and the book "Bf 109 Versions B-E" reports its design genesis as a specifically simple and lightweight fighter. Both of these last books describe in detail the design choices that classify them as lightweight fighters in the modern strategic sense. But, these references are dismissed despite lack of any counter-references. These references are not being granted their due weight.

Now look at the other side. What references support the original lightweight fighter article and its false description that light fighters are toy fighters of no practical use? Exactly zero, with a huge stack of literature and the U.S. Air Force saying the opposite, but nobody had a single complaint. What references support the false statement in the heavy fighter article now that light and heavy fighters don't really matter anymore? Zero, with a mountain of strong references saying the opposite, and again nobody complaining even though this is a critically important issue of national security with hundreds of billions of dollars at stake. But when I bring a stack of strong references to make a simple point about the eighty year old P-51, these solid references are rejected on every excuse that can be dreamed up, by editors who cannot bring a single counter-reference. One of those excuses was that the P-51 is not a lightweight fighter because it has flush rivets. The chief designer of the P-51 declares it to be a lightweight fighter, but somehow that does not matter.

That is what I mean about a blatantly non-neutral double standard. I have presented the references. I have summarized them to save the other editors the time and expense to acquire and read them, which only gets me accused of "wall of words". There has been not a single counter-reference provided. I have posted here seeking mediation and/or negotiation on the referenced material, but it is denied any inclusion at all in the P-51 and light fighter articles, on no legitimate basis. It appears there is no option left other than to request arbitration. We can then test whether journalistic integrity, neutrality, and use of references will be applied in the Wikipedia military aviation area. PhaseAcer (talk) 06:15, 3 January 2020 (UTC)

---

I don't think this debate is appropriate here, maybe it could be moved to Talk:Light fighter? And I'm not sure anyone could decide your argument with the continuous WP:Wall of texts, not even the most constructive admin. Oh, and to grow up, use reliable refs, not your personal experience. If you're experienced, finding supporting refs should be easy. If not, then you can draw your own conclusions.--Marc Lacoste (talk) 07:41, 3 January 2020 (UTC)

Agreed. The issues of editorial approach have been explained several times by several experienced Project members, we can do no more about that. The technical issues belong where Marc says. There is nothing left to add. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 10:12, 3 January 2020 (UTC)

The wall of text is the result of my assumption that the policies on neutrality and references are actually real rules, and that therefore I should explain what the literature of the field says. But apparently they are not, because when a strong set of references is brought and there are ZERO counter-references that opposing editors can bring, the opposing editors can simply say "consensus" to dictate the narrative. The ONLY real rule is local consensus, and all others are optional. So, the reality of the situation is that a group of editors assembled by any means, such as common interest, common employer, government agency, special interest group, whatever, can dominate the Wikipedia presentation on any issue without any references and in complete defiance of whatever the references say. If that was stated up front, it would save a lot of time and trouble. PhaseAcer (talk) 11:48, 3 January 2020 (UTC)

Yes, consensus is key. If fellow editors can't be convinced by arguments, however numerous, they could be flawed. It happened to me, I thought all the others were wrong but then I accepted the situation that I'm not detaining the truth. Assuming there is a conspiracy orchestrated against you is stretching things.--Marc Lacoste (talk) 13:38, 3 January 2020 (UTC)

Your modern sense of the term is mostly irrelevant to the situation in the piston-engined era where aircraft like the Caudron C.714 were designed with a medium-power engine for industrial reasons and minimal structural weight to eke out performance and save money. They had to be sort of competitive, but the C.714 was a good 50+ mph slower than an Bf 109E and the Tucker XP-57 was much the same. Capability, on which you and your supporting authors put so much weight, wasn't deemed anywhere near as important for this class of aircraft back in the day. I'd suggest writing the article through two lenses; the first covering the criteria and definitions used during the piston era and the second using the modern definition and how it has been retrospectively applied to some of the piston-engined aircraft.

I have some issues about the article as currently constituted as never in my life have I ever read anything about the MiG-15 and F-86 being lightweight fighters. F-5, Gnat and MiG-21 absolutely, but not those first-generation jets. --Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 15:37, 3 January 2020 (UTC)

please stop here and continue in Talk:Light fighter--Marc Lacoste (talk) 17:13, 3 January 2020 (UTC)

"So, the reality of the situation is that a group of editors assembled by any means, such as common interest, common employer, government agency, special interest group, whatever, can dominate the Wikipedia presentation on any issue without any references and in complete defiance of whatever the references say."

No. It's that they *all* don't seem to see the same things in the references that you seem to. That you think that a group of established editors has been waiting for years in readiness to oppose you on a single, niche topic says more about you than it does wikipedia. (Hohum ^@) 15:14, 3 January 2020 (UTC)

Hohum, nobody has been "waiting" to oppose me. I have been opposed from day one (4 years now) in telling the truth about fighter effectiveness and the light vs. heavy fighter issue. It was only after stacking the references up to the ceiling, with zero counter-references, that the truth was finally allowed in this article. And it is still not allowed in other articles. Right now the heavy fighter article still claims in its single pitiful paragraph on the modern age that the light vs heavy issue is irrelevant. Only the PR departments of heavy fighter makers, or Satan himself, could dream up a lie as massive as saying that as good or better an air force for half the price is not relevant. When the editors support that unreferenced lie, how do you interpret it? PhaseAcer (talk) 15:22, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

---

Discussion moved here as it is actually a content dispute and this is the primary topic. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 17:59, 3 January 2020 (UTC)

The lede

MOS:CITELEAD essentially says that the summary nature of the lead means that the only cites in the lead should be to superlatives like best, heaviest, etc. as the text in the main body, with the appropriate cites, should support the statements made in the lead.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 16:38, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

Agreed. Much tidying still to be done. I hope that what I have done so far is an improvement. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 16:52, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

Steel, the nice thing about you working on this truthful and deeply referenced article is that it gives you the chance to absorb some of the material. You could now take your awareness of the truth and the references over to the heavy fighter article and do something about the massive unreferenced propaganda being presented there in defiance of the literature of the field and of Wikipedia policy on neutrality and references. You might then lobby to add some coverage of fighter effectiveness and light vs. heavy in the main fighter aircraft article, which refuses to acknowledge the very existence of this issue which has been one of the most hotly contested and critically important defense issues from before WWII to now. Again, that is a massive defiance of Wikipedia policy on neutrality, references, and weight of coverage of important issues within a subject. Only the PR departments of heavy fighter companies, and their allies, could be happy with the current suppression of these massively important issues in the Wikipedia fighter article set. PhaseAcer (talk) 15:56, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for the compliments. I have long been aware that independent analysts tend to favour the light fighter but professional defence staff (and their political masters) tend to fall for the big statements. My naive assumption is that the reality probably lies somewhere between the two extremes, but my chief shortcoming is a lack of time to get deeper in to the topic. May I suggest that you add citation tags to the worst uncited claims in the heavy fighter article? I am adding it to my watchlist as I write this, and will do whatever little I can to try and ensure fair play. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 17:57, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

Steel, reading about air combat and Wikipedia editing are hobbies for me (I am an electronics engineer) and I have a stacked up work week. But, I will tag them and provide some discussion on the heavy fighter talk page this coming weekend. But, everything I have said is the straight truth. If the irritation is coming out, it is because I have been telling the truth for four years now, while stacking the references up to the ceiling, and still get slapped down. I do happen to know a few of the top guys in the field, and they confirm the accuracy of what I have presented. One is a retired top military aviation DoD analyst, two are well known book authors on the subject, another is a retired senior executive on the F-16 program who was deeply involved in its definition and design, and another that I know through private flying and that I regularly get together with is a retired F-16 squadron commander and USAF Fighter Weapons School instructor. They all agree with every significant point I have tried to make here. PhaseAcer (talk) 23:58, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

You are not alone in knowing more than most about a subject. See WP:EXPERT for some thoughts on the editorial issues this raises. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 11:00, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

I'm just an amateur who enjoys studying the subject and discussing it with a few actual experts I know. One of the guys I mentioned above, an elite pro, tried to do some fighter editing on Wikipedia several years ago. But, his expert information and references acquired over decades of professional work were rejected by several aggressive editors, so he quit and won't be back. He says he will save his effort for professional journals. That is a loss for the Wiki fighter articles. PhaseAcer (talk) 23:46, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

Sounds unsurprising. No promises, but there is a saying, "Softly, softly catch'ee monkey." — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 16:31, 8 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.

“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.

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.

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) 23:30, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

You still seem confused between "lightweight fighter" and "light fighter". One is objective; it exists of itself. The other, our article here, is only ever a comparison. To have a light fighter, one must also have a heavy fighter. That doesn't yet apply at the outbreak of WWII. Andy Dingley (talk) 00:31, 19 January 2020 (UTC)

Andy, the literature uses the terms "light fighter" and "lightweight fighter" interchangeably. If you can find any valid reference that defines them differently, please bring it. I have spent hundreds of hours studying this issue, having brought over 50 references on the subject that I have actually read, and I find no such references. The only confusion is in the minds of a few of the editors, who seem to believe that "light fighter" means a very light almost toy fighter. I assume that mistaken belief is based that on the existence of a few very light failed experimental fighter programs. But, the military services, the industry, and the literature do not take that view that only fighters at the very low end of the weight range are light fighters. And, no editor has ever been able to bring a SINGLE references to support that opinion. I am bringing references by the dozens that take the view that light and lightweight fighters are the same thing, and that it means efficient almost always single engine fighters that are just heavy enough to carry the armament to successfully perform the mission, and to do so at minimum cost and resource usage.

The Nakajima J1N, de Havilland Mosquito, P-38, and Messerschmitt Bf 110 heavy twin engined fighters were all designed in the 1935 to 1941 time frame. They are the true heavyweight fighters of WWII. They existed at the beginning of the war, and all through. The Bf 110 was handily defeated by the English single engine light fighters in the Battle of Brittain, a lesson the USAAC failed to appreciate with regards to the P-38, which similarly had to be pulled out of air to air combat in the ETO (references are given above). They were all outclassed by lightweight single engine fighters that performed better and achieved better air to air combat results for half the cost. To not be confused, that is the key strategic point that has to be understood. That is the most basic point about the light vs heavy issue, and is essential to winning wars. PhaseAcer (talk) 01:36, 19 January 2020 (UTC)

• the literature uses the terms "light fighter" and "lightweight fighter" interchangeably.

No, it doesn't. What it does is that it uses both terms to apply to one of those concepts: the lightweight fighter. That's not the same thing as using them "interchangeably", i.e. that only one concept is being referred to. There is also a separate concept (not merely a term) which is the light fighter as should be described in this article. That stems from the NATO competition and some contemporary requirements, but it's not found at the start of WWII.

The "true heavyweight fighters" are of course different again, but they're not the fighters which the light fighter is contrasted to. They're a third, and separate, group. Andy Dingley (talk) 01:42, 19 January 2020 (UTC)

Andy, you seem to want to engage in a purely semantic argument, which is a strawman distraction from the key issues. We have to go by the references and the terms they use, not what might be more logical semantics that we invent ourselves. I am presenting references on the CLASS of efficient and effective fighters for which the military, industry, and literature have settled on the terms "light fighter" and "lightweight fighter". Both terms are used in the references, though the term "lightweight fighter" is actually more common.

By NATO competition, I assume you mean the one won by the Fiat G.91. That is a lightweight ground attack aircraft with no air to air history or ability. The G.91 is not recognized to have any special claim on the term "light fighter", and we would only confuse the editors and readers if we tried to claim that one data point establishes a separate class. The American Lightweight Fighter program would be a more applicable government program to use as a reference and term setting standard, since it led to the F-16, now the most common fighter in the world. It of course uses the term "lightweight fighter", which is the more commonly used term in the WWII time frame also. I don't invent the terms--as an editor I just have to use them. The fact is that both terms are used, and we won't get anywhere trying to insist they are different. If you don't believe it, I can point you to some examples that use both for the same aircraft, often very authoritative references. But if you believe it and are just unhappy that the references are in your opinion using poor semantics, there is nothing we can do about that. I wish the literature used the term "middleweight" for the heavier singles, but the fact is that it does not. It groups as lightweight and heavyweight, primarily based on single and twin, with those usually differing in cost by about a factor of two. I can live with that, and in fact it is an enormously important distinction both for combat performance and budget.

Where we can do something meaningful is summarizing the literature on the very critical national security issue of light/lightweight vs. heavy. It applies from WWII to now, and is critically important both historically and currently. PhaseAcer (talk) 03:02, 19 January 2020 (UTC)

The "light" vs "lightweight" issue can only be settled by citing suitable reliable sources. The term "light fighter" has definitely had specific technical meanings in various eras. Sometimes these meanings may be applied retrospectively by historians and other commentators, but by no means all. It is a shame the Flight archive is offline at the moment, but here is just one example from Jane's in which the term is used in an objective way [1]. Here too is a source which uses all of "light fighter", "lightweight fighter" and "light weight fighter" pretty much indiscriminately [2]. Neither makes the slightest suggestion that "To have a light fighter, one must also have a heavy fighter". Rather, to have a light fighter all we need is sufficient RS calling it a light fighter.

Since one finds both light fighter programmes and lightweight fighter programmes in the historical literature and commentators frequently mixing the terms, then for Wikipedia to claim some semantic distinction requires RS explicitly setting out that distinction, and I am not aware of ever having seen any do so.

However, I would caution that just because a fighter is physically light, or lighter than others, does not necessarily put it in the light/lightweight fighter class; you would need sufficient RS saying it does. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 10:46, 19 January 2020 (UTC)

Steel: Looked at scientifically, the light fighter concept can be expressed as taking the same resources and spreading them over twice as many shooters, which then get 4X the kill opportunities (Lanchester's Law) over the statistical playout of long-term combat. It's similar to the bilogical idea of a pack of wolves being a better and more efficient predator than one Grizzly bear weighing the same amount. Small, cheap fighter drones will soon be taking this idea further. But, there are definite limits to trying to get the facts into Wikipedia with technical presentations. Instead, as you say above, we just have show and explain the references. That is exactly what I am doing on the heavy fighter issue in the modern age, and on efficient single engine WWII fighters being lightweight fighters, for which I have stacked up two dozen references each with basically zero counter-references being found. I am now waiting to see if these large stacks of references with no countering literature can break through the non-neutrality and resulting reference suppression. This probably comes from the involved editors having done plenty of reading, but not this particular reading, so that they do not appreciate the validity of these references. If they will review these references, they would come to appreciate them and understand that their previous study had been lacking some key information.

Andy, the term "lightweight fighter" has historically been more common than "light fighter". That might suggest changing the title of this article to "Lightweight Fighter Aircraft". But, in the past 10 years or so the term "light fighter" has really caught on in the literature. I now regularly see it in military aviation articles describing efficient single engine fighters, almost all multi-role, up through the size of the F-16. It has also being recently applied to lightweight ground attack aircraft, often converted trainers (since you are a stickler for language, I'm sure you understand that usage makes language). So, if the title were changed, it might need to be something like "Light and Lightweight Fighter Aircraft", which I think would be an improvement. The article could also be improved by adding coverage of those light attack aircraft, which really seem to be a coming trend. PhaseAcer (talk) 03:05, 20 January 2020 (UTC)