Military History | How To Make War | Wars Around the World Rules of Use How to Behave on an Internet Forum
Fighters, Bombers and Recon Discussion Board
   Return to Topic Page
Subject: Best All-Around Fighter of World War II
sentinel28a    10/13/2009 3:38:03 PM
Let's try a non-controversial topic, shall we? (Heh heh.) I'll submit the P-51 for consideration. BW and FS, if you come on here and say that the Rafale was the best fighter of WWII, I am going to fly over to France and personally beat you senseless with Obama's ego. (However, feel free to talk about the D.520.)
 
Quote    Reply

Show Only Poster Name and Title     Newest to Oldest
Belisarius1234    There   1/30/2013 9:29:58 PM
are "" _____________ or italics, Stuart. Learn to use them. Just because you cannot reason and communicate, does not excuse you from common writer's  courtesy, when you post your drivel. 
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
 
Incidentally, you are wrong about what you claimed.
 
READ your source again.
 
B.
 
Quote    Reply

oldbutnotwise       1/31/2013 7:34:11 AM
I assumed that it was just your usual broken English and Not the title
 
 
 
Quote    Reply

oldbutnotwise       1/31/2013 7:46:03 AM
IF both of those lines were from the same post, then I can understand his failure to seperate the TWO sentances as the two ideas they were.
 
no IF about it they were from the same post

But that does not change the content of the idea in question, does it?
The BoB Spit DID have numerous controls that IF NOT OPPERATED CORECTLY could substantially reduce it's performance! Which IS the point we were discussing!
 
I will admit if you left the undercaridge down it would subsantially reduce performance, but I assumed we were talking reality here and not what might be possible in a mistake
 
I believe that you and several others here are so put off by my ideas that you can not discuss them in a rational manner.
 
No we are put off by you failing to understand that your Ideas are floored and our evidence is either lacking (usual) or inconclusive
 
Instead you must attack me and avoid answering the questions I pose,
 
We attack you only when you show yourself to be dishonset and/or bring in unsupported claims based on our personnel experiance, and to answering your questions its amazing anyone bothers as you will never accept anything that does not fit your "idea" regardless of the proof provided
 
 because if you did answer then honestly, you would then have to admit that I was correct?
 
As I find you are so rarely correct I doubt this is a major issue, and as you refused to admit your mistakes even when confronted with them time and time again, you did it yesterday when you claimed the B17 carried 17600lbs when you have been show numerious times that
A/ IT DIDNT
B/ IT COULDNT
 
numeroius people have shown you evidence of this and your answer is "well the might have done" and yet you want us to accept your ideas????
 
Quote    Reply

45-Shooter       2/1/2013 3:34:15 PM


are "" _____________ or italics, Stuart. Learn to use them. Just because you cannot reason and communicate, does not excuse you from common writer's  courtesy, when you post your drivel. 

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

 

Incidentally, you are wrong about what you claimed.
No, I am not wrong about any of it. The exact same plane with only a change of prop had air speeds that ranged from just over 350 MPH to 376 MPH! ( IIRC!) that chart is on page 99 of Morgan and Shacklady's book "SPITFIRE the history"! the plane used was K9788 and the exact speeds at 16,000' were between 347 and 365 MPH! (Note that I was wrong about the speeds in the sentance above!)
In the very next parragraph it states that K9788 was then re-en gined with a Merlin XII AND THEN TESTED WITH THREE DIFFERENT PROPS AT THREE DIFFERENT BOOST PRESSURES, FOR SPEEDS OF 363 to 372.5 MPH at 12 pounds of boost!
 

READ your source again. I just did and as you can see I was wrong about the first set of trials being so fast! I'll bet that you had no idea that one little thing like a differend, but still constant speed prop could make such a large differance!

 

B.



 
Quote    Reply

45-Shooter       2/1/2013 3:44:30 PM

But that does not change the content of the idea in question, does it?

The BoB Spit DID have numerous controls that IF NOT OPPERATED CORECTLY could substantially reduce it's performance! Which IS the point we were discussing!
I will admit if you left the undercaridge down it would subsantially reduce performance, but I assumed we were talking reality here and not what might be possible in a mistake Like forgetting to set the prop pitch in the right possition?
 

 

I believe that you and several others here are so put off by my ideas that you can not discuss them in a rational manner.
No we are put off by you failing to understand that your Ideas are floored and our evidence is either lacking (usual) or inconclusive

 

Instead you must attack me and avoid answering the questions I pose,
We attack you only when you show yourself to be dishonset and/or bring in unsupported claims based on our personnel experiance, and to answering your questions its amazing anyone bothers as you will never accept anything that does not fit your "idea" regardless of the proof provided because if you did answer then honestly, you would then have to admit that I was correct?

 


As I find you are so rarely correct I doubt this is a major issue, and as you refused to admit your mistakes even when confronted with them time and time again, you did it yesterday when you claimed the B17 carried 17600lbs when you have been show numerious times that
A/ IT DIDNT
 

Armament 

  • Bombs:
    • Short range missions (<400 mi): 8,000 lb (3,600 kg)
    • Long range missions (˜800 mi): 4,500 lb (2,000 kg)
    • Overload: 17,600 lb (7,800 kg)

B/ IT COULDNT
  See above quote from wiki. Note that I have posted this and many other sources over the last year, but as above, they have all been ignored. 17,600 pounds was not only possible, it was in fact done. So when do I get an appology for your false statements about me above? ( I did not think so!)


 


numeroius people have shown you evidence of this and your answer is "well the might have done" and yet you want us to accept your ideas????



 
Quote    Reply

oldbutnotwise       2/1/2013 4:11:09 PM
But that does not change the content of the idea in question, does it?

The BoB Spit DID have numerous controls that IF NOT OPPERATED CORECTLY could substantially reduce it's performance! Which IS the point we were discussing!
I will admit if you left the undercaridge down it would subsantially reduce performance, but I assumed we were talking reality here and not what might be possible in a mistake
 
Like forgetting to set the prop pitch in the right possition?
 
yes like setting the pitch on  the prop wrong, setting it to the fuel saving cruise position not the normal running position, but as it was a BIG mistake, similar to retracting the undercarridge whilst stationary on the ground or taking off with a ground crew hanging on the tail


I believe that you and several others here are so put off by my ideas that you can not discuss them in a rational manner.
No we are put off by you failing to understand that your Ideas are floored and our evidence is either lacking (usual) or inconclusive
instead you must attack me and avoid answering the questions I pose,
We attack you only when you show yourself to be dishonset and/or bring in unsupported claims based on our personnel experiance, and to answering your questions its amazing anyone bothers as you will never accept anything that does not fit your "idea" regardless of the proof providedbecause if you did answer then honestly, you would then have to admit that I was correct?
 
No because you cannot suuport your side of the argument and refuse to accept that we have shown you to be wrong, yet you dont accept you are wrong
  As I find you are so rarely correct I doubt this is a major issue, and as you refused to admit your mistakes even when confronted with them time and time again, you did it yesterday when you claimed the B17 carried 17600lbs when you have been show numerious times that
A/ IT DIDNT
 

Armament 

  • Bombs:
    • Short range missions (<400 mi): 8,000 lb (3,600 kg)
    • Long range missions (?800 mi): 4,500 lb (2,000 kg)
    • Overload: 17,600 lb (7,800 kg)

    and as pointed out for what seems to be 100 times, NO B17 ever carried 17600lbs thier is NO record of it happening that anyone can find, the MAXIMUM recorded load was 8000lbs for a short range mission,

  • the B17 could only carry 2x4000lbs externally (and none internally) yet their are no records of it ever carrying them in combat, without that thier is no way it can get over 10000lbs

  See above quote from wiki. Note that I have posted this and many other sources over the last year, but as above, they have all been ignored. 17,600 pounds was not only possible, it was in fact done. So when do I get an appology for your false statements about me above? ( I did not think so!)
 
so what, its not as if wiki is never wrong, the therotical max might have been 17600 but there is NO evidence that it was ever carried and no indication of range with such a load so in short provide evidence of such a load or drop it, you have been asked to do this many time but have failed every time so do you get an apology for repeating the same rubbish and avoiding supporting it, well no as you are being dishonest and evasive I think its the board that should get the apology, you are delousional and as we are now returning to repeating the same posts thier is no point in trying to argue with you as you are so narrow minded and refuse to see sense and I have enough of beating my head against a brick wall
 
Quote    Reply

45-Shooter       2/1/2013 5:55:36 PM

 
As I find you are so rarely correct I doubt this is a major issue, and as you refused to admit your mistakes even when confronted with them time and time again, you did it yesterday when you claimed the B17 carried 17600lbs when you have been show numerious times that
A/ IT DIDNT

Armament 

        Bombs:
       
            Short range missions (<400 mi): 8,000 lb (3,600 kg)
            Long range missions (?800 mi): 4,500 lb (2,000 kg)
            Overload: 17,600 lb (7,800 kg)


and as pointed out for what seems to be 100 times, NO B17 ever carried 17600lbs thier is NO record of it happening that anyone can find,  the MAXIMUM recorded load was 8000lbs for a short range mission,
Just because you could not find it, just means that you could not find it, not that is was never done. That is like requiring a negative be proven. Look up the Disney Bomb, for the umpteenth time. If that bomb load was never used then why is it listed on ever plackard, in every book by everu pilot who ever flew it?
       


the B17 could only carry 2x4000lbs externally (and none internally) yet their are no records of it ever carrying them in combat, without that thier is no way it can get over 10000lbs
What about the pictures I posted of a squadron of B-17s each dropping 34- 440 pound Incendiary clusters? They are readily identifiable and you can count the bombs in each stick. The trouble you have is that you refuse to get past early documents that have little or nothing to do with the 8,000 plus G models!

http://www.boeing.com/history/boeing/b17.htmllink />
    See above quote from wiki. Note that I have posted this and many other sources over the last year, but as above, they have all been ignored. 17,600 pounds was not only possible, it was in fact done. So when do I get an appology for your false statements about me above? ( I did not think so!)
so what, its not as if wiki is never wrong, And the dozens of books and plackards at various museum displays?
 the therotical max might have been 17600 but there is NO evidence that it was ever carried
And no evidence that it was not. and no indication of range   Read the range in the link above. IIRC it is 3,750 miles! with such a load so in short provide evidence of such a load or drop it, you have been asked to do this many time but have failed every time so do you get an apology for repeating the same rubbish and avoiding supporting it, I have suppoorted it with links and quotes, what else do you want. A letter from Boeing? well no as you are being dishonest and evasive I think its the board that should get the apology, you are delousional and as we are now returning to repeating the same posts thier is no point in trying to argue with you as you are so narrow minded and refuse to see sense and I have enough of beating my head against a brick wall
 
Why do I not say the same thing about you? You keep repeating the same old canards and ignore all of the links, quotes and sources that I post?

 
Quote    Reply

oldbutnotwise       2/2/2013 2:28:57 PM
and as pointed out for what seems to be 100 times, NO B17 ever carried 17600lbs thier is NO record of it happening that anyone can find,  the MAXIMUM recorded load was 8000lbs for a short range mission,
        Just because you could not find it, just means that you could not find it, not that is was never done. That is like requiring a negative be proven. Look up the Disney Bomb, for the umpteenth time. If that bomb load was never used then why is it listed on ever plackard, in every book by everu pilot who ever flew it?
true I had missed that one, however as it was only carried externally and not with anyother bombs it takes the max load carried to 9000lb from 8000lbs, so we have the B17 with disney and Lancs with Grandslams one at 9000lbs and the other 22000lbs!
       
What about the pictures I posted of a squadron of B-17s each  dropping 34- 440 pound Incendiary clusters?
what pictures? the only post I remember you mentioning this was to refer to to but "we" had to find the pic ourselves which of course we couldnt, also how did these bomb attach to a B17 as there is not enough shackles for them
 
 
No you showed them dropping bombs YOU claimed were 440lbs incendiary clusters and we know how accurate you are in these things
 
They are readily identifiable and you can count the bombs in each stick. The trouble you have is that you refuse to get past early documents that have little or nothing to do with the 8,000 plus G models!
 
little or nothing to do with the model listed? hardly if thats the case you explain a few things,
1, as the bomb bay didnt change between models how could it carry more
2 why cannot you provide a similar reference for the G?
 
then why are they labled B17 G? any why cannot you find a single source that showns the load you claim?
link target="_blank">link... />
     See above quote from wiki. Note that I have posted this and many other sources over the last year, but as above, they have all been ignored.
your link is broken
Not ignored but proved wrong there is a difference
17,600 pounds was not only possible, it was in fact done.
no it wasnt
 
The 17600lbs quoted as far as I can tell relates to the B17 flying bomb the aphrodite?
 
So when do I get an appology for your false statements about me above? ( I did not think so!)
so what, its not as if wiki is never wrong, And the dozens of books and plackards at various museum displays?
 
None of which say that it was ever carried but was the "overload"

the therotical max might have been 17600 but there is NO evidence that it was ever carried And no evidence that it was not.
true, but it is a very very very remote chance, I can say that Lancs carried 2x grandslam and you cannot prove it didnt
 
 and no indication of range   Read the range in the link above. IIRC it is 3,750 miles!
 
what total rubbish the B17 couldnt do that with 6000lbs let alone 17600lbs
 you have been asked to do this many time but have failed every time so do you get an apology for repeating the same rubbish and avoiding supporting it, I have suppoorted it with links and quotes,
No you havent and you know it
 what else do you want. A letter from Boeing?
 
 

  Why do I not say the same thing about you? You keep repeating the same old canards and ignore all of the links, quotes and sources that I post?
what like the loading diagram for the G that clearly shows that it wasnt possible, the USAAF source that says 8000lbs (excepting the special missions with the disney, and before you start - read them the bombers ONLY carried the disney).
 
WHAT sources all it says is that it was 17600lbs OVERLOAD you have never provided a source to say it did it
 
this is my last word on this until you provide a source as your dishonestly is beyond words
 
end of
 
Quote    Reply

Reactive       2/2/2013 8:20:26 PM
The B-17 did have external pylons that could carry 2000lb - I found a diagram of it that i'll post (although it's easy to find if you search) I've also seen photos of B-17's carrying external munitions, glide bombs and the like - from what I've been able to ascertain from my limited research, there is no evidence whatsoever of a great than 8000lb load ever having been used in combat as the performance penalty was presumably too much. There's actually a guy who committed the cardinal sin of making original research on wikipedia who nevertheless trawled through thousands of mission reports to try and find examples of >8000lb payloads - with no success. 
 
There's quite a lot out there from people who know a lot more than me who having researched extensively have found no specific examples of this "overload" ever being used in combat - whether or not it did ever happen it would have been at great expense in range, speed, altitude,  handling - quite possibly making the airframe unstable/unsafe and therefore unusable. That much should be obvious. 
 
 
Quote    Reply

45-Shooter       2/3/2013 12:51:54 PM

    true I had missed that one, the max load carried to 9000lb from 8000lbs, 
    The Boeing company web page lists 9,600 pounds internally as the service load.

    what pictures? the only post I remember you mentioning this was to refer to to but "we" had to find the pic ourselves which of course we couldnt, also how did these bomb attach to a B17 as there is not enough shackles for them
It was a link, or more exactly a group of links, and the B-17 has 34. You can count them yourself on the diagram someone posted here before.

    No you showed them dropping bombs YOU claimed were 440lbs incendiary clusters 
  That was both what the caption stated and the bomb could be self identified as.

1, as the bomb bay didnt change between models how could it carry more
  There were 34 shackles in the later planes. The planes lifting ability is not in question. The maximum over load take off weight was 72,000 pounds OLTO. 65,000 pounds MTO and 56,000 pounds average TOW. With an Empty Equipped Weight of just under 36,000 pounds and 2,780 gallons of gas at 6.5 pounds each = 18,070 pounds, or about 54,070 pounds sans crew, ammo and bombs. You tell us how much weight that leaves at the various take off weights listed above and in all the various refferances.


2 why cannot you provide a similar reference for the G?
  Range and combat radius were extended with the installation in mid-production of additional fuel cells in the wings. Called "Tokyo tanks...", nine self-sealing rubber-composition tanks were mounted inside each wing on each side of the joint... between the inner and outer wing sections. With an extra 1,080 US gal (4,100 l) to the 1,700 US gal (6,400 l) available on the first B-17Fs, the Tokyo tanks added approximately 900 mi (1,400 km) to the bomber's range.

 
your link is broken
  See below.
 
The 17600lbs quoted as far as I can tell relates to the B17 flying bomb the
aphrodite?
  BQ-7 Aphrodite

Late in World War II, at least 25 B-17s were fitted with radio controls to be used as drones designated BQ-7 missiles, constructed under the auspices of Operation Aphrodite.... Loaded with up to 20,000 lb (9,070 kg) of Torpex high explosive and enough fuel for a range of 350 mi (563 km) they were used to attack U-boat... pens, V-1... missile sites, and other bomb-resistant fortifications....

None of which say that it was ever carried but was the "overload"
So now the argument changes from "it was impossible", to "it was never done", to it was "the overload"? Right! 


the therotical max might have been 17600 but there is NO evidence that it was ever carried And no evidence that it was not.

true, but it is a very very very remote chance, I can say that Lancs carried 2x grandslam and you cannot prove it didnt  But I can! and no indication of range   Read the range in the link above. IIRC it is 3,750 miles!

what total rubbish the B17 couldnt do that with 6000lbs let alone 17600lbs
  http://www.boeing.com/... This web site disputes your claim!
    the USAAF source that says 8000lbs http://www.boeing.com/... States 9,600 pounds internaly as the standard bomb load. See the Boeing "History" web page at http://www.boeing.com/history/... 
 
B-17G Specifications
First flight:July 28, 1935 (prototype)
Model number:299
Classification:Bomber
Span:103 feet 9 inches
Length:74 feet 9 inches
Gross weight:65,000 pounds
Top speed:287 mph
Cruising speed:150 mph
Range (max.):3,750 miles
Ceiling:35,600 feet
Power:Four 1,200-horsepower Wright R-1820-97 engines
Accommodation:2 pilots, bombardier, radio-operator, 5 gunners
Armament:11 to 13 machine guns, 9,600-pound bomb load

 


 
Quote    Reply



 Latest
 News
 
 Most
 Read
 
 Most
 Commented
 Hot
 Topics