Confrontational? I'm sorry you feel that way - I'd taken your questions at face value and was trying to answer as best I could. My answers, by the way, are based on much more than the evidence I state, but yours was a nice bit of sarcasm, so for that, I salute you back! My own comment about your having appeared to have made up your mind may have been a bit harsh - if so, I apologise, but you have had it from the horse's mouth (Stillin seems to be a current AD practitioner) who seems broadly representative of the frontline view as I've heard it. Agility is still considered important - look back at the EF gun removal thread, for example.
I'm not a fighter or FJ pilot, but I've interviewed many, including participants from almost all of the wars which you list , and often participants from both sides (No Finns!). By challenging me on the Bf 109G vs Mustang you focused in on the one area where I was least confident - since both aircraft had pretty major problems as 'dogfighters'.
However, having had a chat with a couple of folk who've flown both types, and having re-acquainted myself with the writings of the great Eric Brown, I see that: "The Mustang could steadily outdive the Bf109G-6 and had no difficulty out-turning it" (Wings of the Luftwaffe). This was a comment based on a trial flown with an early G (a G-6 without external fuel and I believe with underwing cannon gondolas removed) which might have been expected to be as agile as any 109 variant, against a rather tired Mustang III (some way short of a late-war P-51D or K), which might be expected to be less agile than a typical 'stang. Despite this, the only advantage Brown claimed for the 109G was in climb-rate below 20,000 ft.
He made a great deal of the 'heaviness' of the Gs controls at high speeds, and the effect of the auto-slats, which caused aileron snatching in any high g manoeuvres. He also listed the cramped cockpit, poor quality of the glass and perspex, poor harmonisation of the controls, the over-light rudder and ailerons and the very heavy elevator as being weak points. And this, remember, was a G-6, he'd have found a late G or a K even less impressive against a P-51.
Many former Mustang drivers will describe their aircraft in glowing terms, but I believe that serious examination (there was a marvellous paper in the SETP journal comparing four US WWII fighters) gives a the Mustang a less glowing report, not least because of its tendency to depart, rather violently. There is no doubt, however, that it was agile, with a phenomenal rate of roll (described by Brown as being 'only slightly inferior to the Fw 190.... which set the standard for fighter rate of roll').
With regard to General Yeager, I'd personally be slightly cautious in accepting his value judgements about any aeroplane. Undeniably a great fighter pilot, he was also a great self publicist. Talking up the quality of his opponents makes his already impressive achievements look even more remarkable. He is, incidentally, the man who said of the Northrop X-4 that after he'd flown it and had such problems they 'junked it then and there'. In fact the X-4 flew on for many more flights, albeit in the hands of modest, publicity-shy and unassuming TPs, who would never have been his equal as a combat fighter pilot, but who perhaps had better 'hands'.
There are a whole bunch of guys who've recently flown both types (as warbirds) and while I'm cautious about the representativeness of a restored Bf 109G (with an engine which may be much less than its wartime best - or much better) it's worth noting that no-one I've spoken to felt that the G-6 was anywhere near to being a match for the Mustang. But that's pretty subjective, and may be unreliable.
I don't claim that agility defines air combat success - like many of your other respondents, I was merely cautioning you against the apparent belief that it was entirely irrelevant, and the claim that it always has been.
You are quite right in questioning whether for one Air Force to gain Air Superiority over another, it necessarily has to operate the more manoeuvrable airframes. In some cases, victory is possible without, and other factors, (Pilot quality and training, MMI, sensor and weapons performance, SA, etc. C3I) will sometimes be more important.
But when the margin is narrow (as it often is in air combat) then manoeuvrability is not an advantage to be given away lightly. This is perhaps more true now than ever before, when avoidance of casualties has assumed so great an importance. There is a real imperative to keep our fighter pilots safe, and exchange rates which may have been acceptable in WWII (where winning the battle was more important than comparative losses) or Korea would no longer be tolerated today.
Don't feel I'm having a go, please. But it's always worth re-thinking one's most cherished notions, if only so that you can back them up with more powerful evidence, and dismantle your critics with even more force!. Good luck with the book, BTW, who's the publisher?
Edited to answer Flatus:
MiG-29 entered service after F3's conception, but was probably known to be 'on the horizon' from soon after its first flight when it was spotted at Zhukhovskii (Ramenskoye) by satellite. I wouldn't want to be too harsh on those who failed to realise how agile it was going to turn out to be - that first Farnborough appearance with the tailslide and the amazingly tight (non FBW) turns took everyone by surprise!
The AD Mirages in the Falklands were 'kept back' but the Daggers flew FGA from start to finish, BTW.
[ 18 August 2001: Message edited by: Jackonicko ]