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
45-Shooter       3/4/2013 6:59:35 PM


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?
No, the other and more likely reason is that the Lancaster is a much more fragile plane.
how does that work? on comparable missions the B17 lose more and somehow the Lanc is more fragile? no logic there
  Because WO dates and targets, it is impossible to make those statements with any reasonable chance of surrity!
Other questions raised by your post are; Dates and time fraims.

"attacked the same targets during the same period "  did you miss this bit?
NO, I saw it, but WO the dates and targets, it is not possible to make good judgements.
 
I did notice this and that is why I asked the very important question about dates and times!
WO those criteria, any conclusion is worthless! If it was late in the war when German resistance was much diminished, then it scues the results. If it was early in the war, then the Germans were no geared up to fight at night and that also scews the results. So one more time what are the twelve dates and what were the times of those twelve missions?
look them up yourself but a hint all 12 compared were within a month (thats why the small sample finding missiions to the same target close together limits the sample size but gives a fair assesment)
  Why waist my time, if you have the data? Post it and lets have a look!
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?

Certainly! Once you have data sets with a populations of 156,000 and 240,000, they will be infinetly better than any twelve sets of points! So yes, thye entire data set is always better than any sub-set!

ONLY if the data is comparable So you can quote a rule or theorem which states that in the studdy of statistics, "a smaller population is better than a larger on so large?" Right! List the dates and targets! which its not in the was you are using it, by using whol war figures you can only ernalise not use it for specifics like you are doing, this is your problem you have no idea about sampling, a large set of unlike data is worth far less that a smal set of compaable data, until you learn this you will never understand
  So if you are not afraid of a fair comp between your data set and mine, why don't you post those dates, targets and times? It is sort of like the AGW debate. No-one has ever seen the data set that started the rhubarb with it's "Hockey stick" kink, that now thanks to several thousand leaked E-Mails from the Principles have sent at least one of them to jail and cost others huge money as they have been forced to return grant money. Show us all the dates, times and targets!
 
Quote    Reply

45-Shooter       3/4/2013 7:05:13 PM

For further info
according to Graham M Simons and Dr Harry Friedman in Boeing B17 the fifteen ton flying fortress
Is completely irrealivant as it does not apply to the E, F and G Mods! their is no record of the 4000lbs ever being carried operationally
Just because we can not find those records, does not mean that in the chaos of WW-II it did not happen. Also please stop useing figures from the first few hundred planes and used those from the other 12,000+ planes! 

Post the data, use realivant planes, or should we comp the first B-17s that predated the first, IE twin engined, Lancs?

 
Quote    Reply

45-Shooter       3/4/2013 7:08:02 PM

That was the word you looked for, Stuart, when you couldn't quite finish the thought?
 
ROTFLMAO. Thats it, but I am too polite to actually use it!
 
B,

Post the dates and targets!

 
Quote    Reply

oldbutnotwise       3/5/2013 7:20:07 AM
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?
No, the other and more likely reason is that the Lancaster is a much more fragile plane.
how does that work? on comparable missions the B17 lose more and somehow the Lanc is more fragile? no logic there      
  Because WO dates and targets, it is impossible to make those statements with any reasonable chance of surrity!
Other questions raised by your post are; Dates and time fraims.    

"attacked the same targets during the same period "  did you miss this bit?
     NO, I saw it, but WO the dates and targets, it is not possible to make good judgements.    
 
I did notice this and that is why I asked the very important question about dates and times!
WO those criteria, any conclusion is worthless! If it was late in the war when German resistance was much diminished, then it scues the results. If it was early in the war, then the Germans were no geared up to fight at night and that also scews the results. So one more time what are the twelve dates and what were the times of those twelve missions?
look them up yourself but a hint all 12 compared were within a month (thats why the small sample finding missiions to the same target close together limits the sample size but gives a fair assesment)
  Why waist my time, if you have the data? Post it and lets have a look!
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?

Certainly! Once you have data sets with a populations of 156,000 and 240,000, they will be infinetly better than any twelve sets of points! So yes, thye entire data set is always better than any sub-set!

 

Only when the data sets are comparative and as you state in another posts they clearly are not

ONLY if the data is comparable So you can quote a rule or theorem which states that in the studdy of statistics, "a smaller population is better than a larger on so large?" Right!
only if the data set are comparative otherwise you have noise which prevents any reasonable anaylsis
 
 List the dates and targets! which its not in the was you are using it, by using whol war figures you can only ernalise not use it for specifics like you are doing, this is your problem you have no idea about sampling, a large set of unlike data is worth far less that a smal set of compaable data, until you learn this you will never understand

  So if you are not afraid of a fair comp between your data set and mine, why don't you post those dates, targets and times? It is sort of like the AGW debate. No-one has ever seen the data set that started the rhubarb with it's "Hockey stick" kink, that now thanks to several thousand leaked E-Mails from the Principles have sent at least one of them to jail and cost others huge money as they have been forced to return grant money. Show us all the dates, times and targets!
No, you cliam my data is cherry picked then do your own unbiases research I am not here to make you life easy just to point out the rubbish you spout
 you are not making theories from a set of data al la AGW but you are making therories on compairing two sets of  unalike data so not even your comparasions is correct
 
Quote    Reply

oldbutnotwise       3/5/2013 7:26:31 AM






For further info
according to Graham M Simons and Dr Harry Friedman in Boeing B17 the fifteen ton flying fortress
     Is completely irrealivant as it does not apply to the E, F and G Mods! their is no record of the 4000lbs ever being carried operationally
Just because we can not find those records, does not mean that in the chaos of WW-II it did not happen. Also please stop useing figures from the first few hundred planes and used those from the other 12,000+ planes! 

Post the data, use realivant planes, or should we comp the first B-17s that predated the first, IE twin engined, Lancs?
1 there were NO twin engine lancs that was the Manchester
2, those figures were for the F and Gs
3 so which bit of they didn't drop them and they wouldn't fit anyway did you fail to understand?
4 I posted for the F and G tough
5 as we cannot find ANY source that claims it did then it is same to assume that it didn't, or should I claim that the mossie carried a 12000lb tallboy, same argument you use I cannot find evidence that says it didnt

 
 
Quote    Reply

Belisarius1234    Did that already, Stuart.   3/5/2013 10:04:49 AM
USSBS.
 
 But then you can't read, can't learn, and will demand more 'proofs', because you are too ignorant to handle data, so what's the point?
 
B.
 
Quote    Reply

Belisarius1234    Did that already, Stuart.   3/5/2013 10:06:31 AM
As for being polite in language, there is no fouler user of language than a liar.
 
And we KNOW that you are one.
 
B.
 
 
Quote    Reply

oldbutnotwise       3/5/2013 1:43:46 PM
 
 
  Are you stating that the double cyclone was the same engine as the original cyclone? How long did it take to get every other new engine from the inter-war period into service and what was their initial service record?
I have never mentioned the design it is the build quality that was seriously at fault so much so that they needed to bribe inspectors to get them passed
 
the P&W was a far better engine more power more reliable and much, much better built
 
The first Wright Cyclones were the best engines in the world when first introduced.
and just how to you justify that statement!
 
 They had more power per pound, lasted longer and required less maintenance than all of their other comps!
 
not according to P&W and those that used them! 
    so far everyone who has encounted you believes that your judgement is     
seriously flawed
Many folks on this board have very bad judgement.
 
that seems to be a recurring problem doesn't it, EVRYONE on any site that you sign up seems to suffer from this, in fact I have yet to find anyone on any site that doesn't suffer from it, least in the way you mean, in that they disagree with your rubbish and refuse to bow down to your total trash, looks like their is only ONE person in this world that agrees with you and that is you, their are medical terms for this, have you ever thought of medical help, I have asked repeatedly for you to provide anyone who agrees with you
 
Quote    Reply

Skylark    Radials ruled!   3/5/2013 5:35:27 PM
The advantages of the radial, be they the original cyclone, the double-cyclone, Wright or P&W in warfare is impossible to ignore.  They were cheap, easy to manufacture, reliable, long-wearing, easy to maintain and all but impossible to disable with anything short of an 88mm anti-aircraft round.  In comparison to water-cooled engines, like the Merlin, the wright double-cyclone was (for all practical purposes.) invulnerable.  Ground crews liked the radials because they were easy to service and tolerant of primitive conditions.  The US navy loved them for their compact size, as well as their high-state of readiness in service.  A radial engine could be removed, rebuilt and replaced on an airframe in a fraction of the time needed for their more complex and quirkier water-cooled cousins.  To say otherwise is to ignore reality.  Among the radials few faults was their brick-like aerodynamic shape, but that did not prevent the Seversky from building a plane that blew away the competition at the Bendix races of the 1930s.  They also had a power to speed to economy flaw that was baked into the radial concept.  To get more speed, you needed more power which tended to drop fuel-economy and range.  The only solution was to take advantage of the enormous payload the radial could lift by building bigger planes that carried more fuel to re-balance the formula, thus giving us the Thunderbolt and the Hellcat.  Of course, bigger also meant less nimble and more fuel made it more flammable, but the advantages of the radial in the air and on the ground more than made up for that.  I never heard of defective radials being pressed into service before, but then the quality control levels between a Merlin and a Double-Cyclone is like comparing a Ferrari to a Volkswagen.  The Rolls-Royce plant, as well as the German Daimler-Benz water-cooled engines were marvels of precision craftsmanship, while the radial was more of a stamped out, bolted together affair that was perfect for the production-line.  They endured because they were crude and stupid, and mass-produced, primarily BY the crude and stupid, on a scale that would have created quite a lot of duds simply on the basis of the percentages alone.  But taking into consideration the cost and production numbers involved, who cares?  If it doesn't work, toss it out, bring on the next one and bolt it on.  Done!  There were plenty more where that came from and taking into consideration the relative costs between a Wright Double-Cyclone and a Rolls-Royce Merlin, still a bargain.  Wright or P&W, BMW or Nakajima... radials ruled!
 
Quote    Reply

Belisarius1234    SL...   3/5/2013 10:29:15 PM
Even by radial standards, the Wrights were crap. 
 
B.
 
 
Quote    Reply



 Latest
 News
 
 Most
 Read
 
 Most
 Commented
 Hot
 Topics