[Franek Grabowski]

Originally Posted by kalender1973

That show, you don't undestand the nature of tactical air war in the east where the air war was driven through ground battle.
It is long story, but from actual point of view, Kuban was nothing particular. It was some prove of concept for VVS high command but from the point of fighting and losses for both sides it can not be compared with Stalingrad or Kursk.

From the actual Luftwaffe's standpoint they were never massacred on the east, rather forced to remove unit by the unit due to increasing losses on the west. Nothing on the east can be compared to such a hectic period like Battle of Normandy (which was typical ground support battle).
BTW Some researchers claim Kursk was nothing particular from the German point of view, losses being about average.

Ok. IIRC on 12.05.44 8th air force was directed against german synthetic oil industry. It was some 1500 bombers and 1500 fighters(and additionally RAF figthers provide cover operation in France). And you would say, that the whole job was done by 300-400 P-51? Then we have new "wunderwaffe".

Kutscha partially answered this. I may add that the number of Mustangs taking the pun could have been as low as ~40 aircraft, as the escort was provided on legs. The point is that those ~40 Mustangs were with the bombers all the time. Additionally, Mustangs on sweeps kept care that no Luftwaffe aircraft will take off safely. Yes, Mustang was a wunderwaffe.

What Mark Gallay concern, I would say his opinion reflect the soviet fighter mentality but it is other story

I would rather say, a general Soviet mentality, that disallows any serious discussion. I note Soviet and not Russian.

I know the author from other forum, and after some discussion I preffer did not read his works.

Well, but it is not enough to consider his writing wrong.

The G-2 was faster and has better climbing rate.

Is that all? I would say it is not enough to discuss aircraft performance.

Maybe your source? I know, Franek, all soviet types was complete harmless and the all german losses was pilots suicide or technically failure.

If you have bothered to read my other posts, you would easily find that I am very critical on German loss data. Nonetheless it is not the point. Victories were achieved on such obsolete aircraft like Fiat CR.42, Gladiator or I-15, but nobody will consider this a proof of their technical superiority. Yaks were never state of the art, and more, had several limitations, to mention poor armament, short range or not very good altitude performance as most important ones. Some people claim that Yak-3 was a most promising and nice Soviet fighter, but nobody takes in mind it had performance comparable with Spitfire V trop. It was enough to get a Me 109G in infavourable position, but it would be interesting to compare this 1944 aircraft with such ones like Meteor, Mustang, Spitfire XIV or Tempest.

Really? Copy? What type, beside after war Tu-4(B-29)?

It depends what you consider a copy. You can make direct one like Tu-4 but you can also copy aerodynamical or technological features, not to mention equipment or engines. Soviets copied for example BMWs, Jumos, RR Derwents and Nenes which allowed them to get into the jet age. There was a plan to copy a Me 262, but it was abandoned in favour of a very similar Su-9 fighter. I have had in my own hands several pieces of equipment that were direct copies of western one, eg. flight parameter recorder, which used (IIIRC) 1'3/4 inch film (not metric anyway).