NOTE: IM NOT 'TARGETING' ANYONE- YOU WILLINGLY CLICKED IT. (Today's "Hot Take" might not be 'controversial', I jus have to put it so nobody says I "targeted" them. Maybe tomorrow will be worse :>)

Spoiler

Hi, my name is Callie — or Калли, if you prefer the Cyrillic flair. I'm a huge fan of military aircraft — from WWII warbirds to experimental prototypes — and honestly, I’m a massive nerd when it comes to flight mechanics, dogfighting theory, and aircraft design. I spend way too much time studying planes, building my own concepts, and tweaking them down to the last rivet.

But it doesn’t stop there — I’m also deep into worldbuilding, and I’ve created my own fictional nation called Kultaakar, complete with its own military doctrine, propaganda, and air fleet. If you’re into alternate history, patriotic vibes, or just want to see some cool builds, check out my profile to explore more of Kultaakar’s universe :>

@Apollo.Is.Silly Her kindness. She's patient with me and understanding purely out of kindness. She does things for me that not even my own mother does. Purely out of kindness. She takes time out of her day to make sure that I'm feeling better. She always tries to make me smile. I could most likely list 100 things that I like about her/things she does for me that I appreciate.

@Almond True. From a dogfighting perspective, the Bf 109 holds a clear advantage in climb performance over the early-model Spitfire. The Spitfire's engine was significantly less powerful in comparison, and its outdated float-type carburetor made matters worse. In vertical climbs, the Spitfire would stall far sooner than the Bf 109, limiting its ability to maintain energy in a sustained engagement.

@Gabii heh what about me :>

War Thunder added new vehicles and missiles, and it completely broke the game.

First of all, I'm competent — I can dodge every single missile that comes my way. But that damn AIM-120C, flung from the heavens by an F-15, is impossible to dodge.

Most F-15 players use TWS, so it doesn’t give off a radar hard lock — which is smart, because I do the same. On top of that, the missile doesn’t trigger your RWR at launch — only when it goes pitbull. Not that it matters… by the time it triggers your RWR, it’s already screaming toward you from above.

And when I do see the missile and try to deck hug while multipathing, this damn missile is on a mission. No amount of chaff, deck hugging, or radar trickery can save you

It wouldn’t be so bad if, after getting obliterated, I could at least go down in peace — but no. I’m watching my pilot burn to death as three more missiles slam into my already-dead aircraft like, DUDE, I’M DEAD.

@Enchanted It's a Air to Air missile designed for BVR (Beyond Visual Range). Both are Fox-3's (active radar missiles, so they have their own radar onboard guiding them to target. Hence the term Fire and Forget). Anyways, The RB-99 is Sweden's version of the Aim-120c. I was wanting to see what Air to Air missile people preferred even tho they are fairly similar in performance :>

Aim-120c or RB-99?

@Sofii Red and Black, perfect combo goes good with almost anything.

@orbital :>

In a matchup between the P-47D Thunderbolt and the Bf 109 K-4, the outcome would heavily depend on altitude and engagement style. The Bf 109 K-4, being the final and most advanced variant of the Messerschmitt line, had superior climb rate, acceleration, and low-speed maneuverability. It was deadly in vertical engagements and could dominate in a dogfight with its high-performance Daimler-Benz engine and excellent high-altitude capabilities. However, the P-47D, with its massive airframe and robust radial engine, excelled in high-speed dives, durability, and firepower — especially with its eight .50 caliber machine guns. In a turnfight or climb battle, the Bf 109 K-4 would likely outclass the P-47. But in boom-and-zoom tactics or head-on engagements, the Thunderbolt’s speed in a dive and ruggedness gave it a strong advantage. In short: the Bf 109 K-4 wins in close, vertical fights, while the P-47D dominates with speed, energy tactics, and survivability.

@waterbottl vro Assuming you're talking abt him in the spitfire and he pulls a negative g maneuver, his float carburetor fails, effectively stalling his aircraft. This issue was latter fixed in the later spitfire variants, like the trop variant. Although were talking abt early models here, so this issue still remains in the spitfire.

I'm designing an jet interceptor aircraft, and I need inspiration... Please send any designs of amazing interceptors i could possibly attempt to recreate. So far I've made designs of the Me-163, Me-262, and F-100. Please send them ASAP. All the designs I've made have all not met the requirements. On of aircraft requirements that I've been struggling with is for it to have a MINUIMUM of 760km/h. So far all my aircraft has had an average speed of 500-650 km/h. I NEED HELP!

@sagearooniexx

I have a couple of picks...

1. The Mig-29, need I say more? Its a 4th gen fighter with insane dogfighting capabilities and is widely versatile. A solid aircraft that can easily hold its own.
2. The Mig-25, its capable of Mach 2.3 i believe which in of its self considering this aircraft was made during the cold war is insanely impressive and deserves a high ranking.
3. Mig-15, this thing was insanely dominant during the Korean war, it has a nasty 37mm cannon (may be an auto cannon, please correct me if I'm wrong) that's capable of just melting enemy aircraft. This thing along with the F-86 in my opinion revolutionized early jets.

Let me know your guy's pick.

I believe the Bf-109 would win, simply due to its capability of of energy fighting and being able to perform negative g maneuvers, while the spitfire is capable of outrating the Bf-109, the Bf-109 can simply extend and regain a higher energy state.

An early model Spitfire in a dogfight with an early model BF-109, who would win?

In my opinion, the Bf-109 due to its versatility and ability to energy fight.

@Lanasucksatart Whatever one your mom is in

@sageee