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    Yes it can.   2/25/2013 11:18:47 PM
Its called POLITICS. Greased palms=production orders and cursing mechanics
 
Curtiss Wright produced horrible aircraft and horrible engines. Who survived the war?
 
PRATT and WHITNEY.
 
Your ignorance of the facts prove out so simply, Stuart. 
 
B.
 
Quote    Reply

45-Shooter       2/26/2013 3:42:03 PM

Curtiss Wright produced horrible aircraft and horrible engines. Who survived the war?
PRATT and WHITNEY.
Their order book dropped to zero after the war and it was their third gen jet engine, the J-57, IIRC, that saved the company. By the way, is not Wright still in business after mergers, etc...
 
One more time, how can an engine rack up so many laurels if it was as bad as you say? Note that there are still more Wright Cyclones flying than there are Merlins, Griffons, Alisons, etc all other recips combined! So you obviously missed something in your assessment!
I wonder what that was? Or maybe, it was just a faulty judgement on your part?
 
Quote    Reply

oldbutnotwise       2/26/2013 4:18:54 PM
            Curtiss Wright produced horrible aircraft and horrible engines. Who survived the war? PRATT and WHITNEY.
Their order book dropped to zero after the war and it was their third gen jet engine, the J-57, IIRC, that saved the company. By the way, is not Wright still in business after mergers, etc...

           
One more time, how can an engine rack up so many laurels if it was as bad as you say? Note that there are still more Wright Cyclones flying than there are Merlins, Griffons, Alisons, etc all other recips combined! So you obviously missed something in your assessment!
I wonder what that was? Or maybe, it was just a faulty judgement on your part?
Try reading up on Curtis wright and the rubbish they turned out (needing to bribe inspectors they were so bad) and even the double they fitted to the B29 needed a huge amount of work to make it work properly (true the post wars airliners did benift from that)
 
 exactly how many of those engines are still flying in warbirds? and as  Allisons are still being produced for fitting to new aircraft I would say your final paragraph, whilst techinally correct but wrong in essence

so far everyone who has encounted you believes that your judgement i s seriously flawed

 
Quote    Reply

oldbutnotwise       2/26/2013 4:31:55 PM
after one of shooters unsupported trash he got me thinking, the B17 had a better survival rate than the Lanc this seems to go against the info out there, so i did a bit of digging
 
I compared 12 missions in which BC and USAAF attacked the same targets during the same period and found that in 11 of these raids the B17 had significantly higher loss rates (the 12 was without loss for both but this was 45)
 
now how does this compare with shooter figures, well it looks like when they had similar missions the Lanc was less likely to be lost, so why did the B17 have better sorties/loss rates well the obvious answer is that the unlike mission flown the USAAF had softer targets
 
Quote    Reply

45-Shooter       2/26/2013 6:06:15 PM

One more time, how can an engine rack up so many laurels if it was as bad as you say? Note that there are still more Wright Cyclones flying than there are Merlins, Griffons, Alisons, etc all other recips combined! So you obviously missed something in your assessment!
Try reading up on Curtis wright and the rubbish they turned out (needing to bribe inspectors they were so bad) and even the double they fitted to the B29 needed a huge amount of work to make it work properly (true the post wars airliners did benift from that)exactly how many of those engines are still flying in warbirds? and as  Allisons are still being produced for fitting to new aircraft I would say your final paragraph, whilst techinally correct but wrong in essence
1. Well, lets see; How many B-17s, How many T-28s, How many Dc-3s??? Etc...
2. Allisons still in production? There are more than a few people who would dispute that, including employees of Yancey Allisons; 
http://yanceyallisons.com">http://yanceyallisons.comIIRC, one of their employees is a member of this board? 


But wait, do not tell me you have made two more mistakes on top of the last dozen or so? Still no reply about making your own measurements of the B-17's bomb bays?

 
Quote    Reply

45-Shooter       2/26/2013 6:10:54 PM

I compared 12 missions in which BC and USAAF attacked the same targets during the same period and found that in 11 of these raids the B17 had significantly higher loss rates (the 12 was without loss for both but this was 45)  
 
now how does this compare with shooter figures, well it looks like when they had similar missions the Lanc was less likely to be lost, so why did the B17 have better sorties/loss rates well the obvious answer is that the unlike mission flown the USAAF had softer targets

Thank you for making my points! Inspite of your wrangling, your post prooves that bombing at night was safer than bombing durring the day!
Other questions raised by your post are; Dates and time fraims. They did not attack the same targets on the same day, because at best, the Lancs were bombing at night and the -17 did it in broad daylight! So it would seem to me that you have cherry picked the data sets and then drawn the wrong conclusions from your data.

 
Quote    Reply

Belisarius1234    As it is you who made the mistakes?   2/26/2013 10:30:25 PM
Why bother answering further Stuart lies?
 
Skewed perspective might be a reason I know you LIED about measuring dimensions, Shooter.
 
B.
 
 
Quote    Reply

Belisarius1234    As it is you who made the mistakes?   2/26/2013 10:40:30 PM
If they were within a week or month of each other, then the missions are data comparable. 
 
As usual, Stuart, your argument has the big OBVIOUS hole in it that makes it laughable.
 
=======================================
 
OBNW, there is one thing I did note in all the data. While individual mission loss rates were roughly equal, day or night, the Germans seemed to be more sortie efficient against the night flyers. The day fighter force was some 400-600 aircraft with massings against the USAAF in the dozens up to a couple hundred on many occasions. Lancasters were clay pigeoned by as few as 200 NJs and never more than a couple of dozen at a time at the bomber stream crossing points. The Lancasters had a very hard time of it. German night defenses were very efficient. As Stuart lies about this part of history constantly, I thought I would mention the TRUTH for a change. 
 
B.




I compared 12 missions in which BC and USAAF attacked the same targets during the same period and found that in 11 of these raids the B17 had significantly higher loss rates (the 12 was without loss for both but this was 45)  

 
now how does this compare with shooter figures, well it looks like when they had similar missions the Lanc was less likely to be lost, so why did the B17 have better sorties/loss rates well the obvious answer is that the unlike mission flown the USAAF had softer targets

Thank you for making my points! Inspite of your wrangling, your post prooves that bombing at night was safer than bombing durring the day!
Other questions raised by your post are; Dates and time fraims. They did not attack the same targets on the same day, because at best, the Lancs were bombing at night and the -17 did it in broad daylight! So it would seem to me that you have cherry picked the data sets and then drawn the wrong conclusions from your data.

 
Quote    Reply

oldbutnotwise       2/27/2013 3:39:49 AM
One more time, how can an engine rack up so many laurels if it was as bad as you say? Note that there are still more Wright Cyclones flying than there are Merlins, Griffons, Alisons, etc all other recips combined! So you obviously missed something in your assessment!
Try reading up on Curtis wright and the rubbish they turned out (needing to bribe inspectors they were so bad) and even the double they fitted to the B29 needed a huge amount of work to make it work properly (true the post wars airliners did benift from that)exactly how many of those engines are still flying in warbirds? and as  Allisons are still being produced for fitting to new aircraft I would say your final paragraph, whilst techinally correct but wrong in essence
1. Well, lets see; How many B-17s, How many T-28s, How many Dc-3s??? Etc...
how many DC3? because all the ones I know of are P&W powered! and how many flying aircraft have P&W's  my guess is more than curtis's

2. Allisons still in production? There are more than a few people who would dispute that, including employees of Yancey Allisons; 
http://www.strategypage.com/militaryforums/%3Ca%20href=" target="_blank"><="" a="">http://yanceyallisons.com" target="_blank">http://yanceyallisons.com/" target="_blank">http://yanceyallisons.com">http://yanceyallisons.com" target="_blank">http://yanceyallisons.com/" target="_blank">http://yanceyallisons.comIIRC, one of their employees is a member of this board? 

An I remebering him saying they can produce a brand new allison and did for the MIG replicars

But wait, do not tell me you have made two more mistakes on top of the last dozen or so?
So I make mistake, less than you do but still I do make them, the big difference is that I can admit it and learn someting you fail to do 
 
Still no reply about making your own measurements of the B-17's bomb bays?
why? I KNOW you cant fit it in, it is for you to convince the whole world that they are wrong and you are right and so far you are failing to do so
 
 
Quote    Reply

oldbutnotwise       2/27/2013 3:45:38 AM
 compared 12 missions in which BC and USAAF attacked the same targets during the same period and found that in 11 of these raids the B17 had significantly higher loss rates (the 12 was without loss for both but this was 45)   
now how does this compare with shooter figures, well it looks like when they had similar missions the Lanc was less likely to be lost, so why did the B17 have better sorties/loss rates well the obvious answer is that the unlike mission flown the USAAF had softer targets

Thank you for making my points! Inspite of your wrangling, your post prooves that bombing at night was safer than bombing durring the day!
er yes thats why the RAF moved to it! and your point is? 
 
mine s clear if night bombing is safer and yet the RAF lost more bombers in less missions then te obvious conclusion is that the Day missions were against easier targets
 
Other questions raised by your post are; Dates and time fraims.
"attacked the same targets during the same period "  did you miss this bit?
 
 They did not attack the same targets on the same day,
 
What Like Dreseden and schwienfurt?
 
 because at best, the Lancs were bombing at night and the -17 did it in broad daylight! So it would seem to me that you have cherry picked the data sets and then drawn the wrong conclusions from your data.
 
and your full war figures are comparable?
 
your figures are like saying I have a 1000s feathers and 1000 lead balls and they must weight the same as thier are the same number! 
 
Quote    Reply



 Latest
 News
 
 Most
 Read
 
 Most
 Commented
 Hot
 Topics