Except longbowmen without their usual anti-cav defences, i.e the pointed stakes they drove into the ground (not even talking about other branches of the army here, like infantry or cavalry acting in supporting roles), are basically like grounded airplanes in your analogy.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Patay"In this battle, the English attempted to use the same tactics it had in the victorious battles of Crécy in 1346, Poitiers in 1356, and Agincourt in 1415. These tactics called for having extensive numbers of longbowmen defended by sharpened stakes driven into the ground in front of their army, the stakes slowing and hampering a cavalry assault while the longbowmen massacred the enemy. However, in the Battle of Patay, the French knights were finally able to catch the English unprepared.
No other country in Europe used the longbow as extensively as England. Although the weapon itself was relatively inexpensive to produce, it was difficult to amass a large pool of trained bowmen: constant practice was required to develop the skills and muscle power needed to use the longbow effectively. In order to ensure a sufficient number of skilled longbowmen, the English government required yeomen and peasants to train with their bows regularly. The large number of longbowmen the English could field as a result of this policy gave them a great military advantage during the fourteenth and fifteenth centuries. Longbowmen had a serious weakness, however: due to their light armor (or complete lack thereof), they were at a distinct disadvantage in hand-to-hand combat when faced with armored men-at-arms. At Patay, the French army took advantage of this crucial weakness.
Longbowmen were never intended to fight armoured knights unsupported except from prepared positions where the knights could not charge them, and they were massacred."
The defensive preparations necessary to use the longbowmen volleys effectively were incredibly decisive.