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
oldbutnotwise       2/27/2013 8:07:28 AM
ok from Boeings own measure ments we have the outside edge of the wing fillets to the centerline was 4' 7"
 so it is impossible for the bay to be bigger than 9'2"
 
from that 9'2" you need to substract the wing fillet, the fuselarge skin, the fuselarge structure, the bomb racks the walkway and the walkway support structure
 
as there is only 8' 10" between the props that also indicates that the bay is a lot smaler than you are claiming
 
Quote    Reply

45-Shooter       2/27/2013 6:50:59 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?  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
No, the other and more likely reason is that the Lancaster is a much more fragile plane. 
Other questions raised by your post are; Dates and time fraims.
" attacked the same targets during the same period "  did you miss this bit?
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? 
 
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! 
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! That is the silliedt argument I have ever heard! 
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       2/27/2013 7:13:19 PM

ok from Boeings own measure ments we have the outside edge of the wing fillets to the centerline was 4' 7"
so it is impossible for the bay to be bigger than 9'2"
While this may be true, how can you make this deduction based on the above info? You have no way to know where the fillets start and stop on the underside of the plane in relation to the circular cross section of the fuse. Other defects in reason, but not worth going into.
 
from that 9'2" you need to substract the wing fillet, the fuselarge skin, the fuselarge structure, the bomb racks the walkway and the walkway support structure
Many defects in logic and fact. But again, not worth argueing about. I just ask this; Where does the fillet start on the wing and end on the underside of the fuse?
 
as there is only 8' 10" between the props that also indicates that the bay is a lot smaler than you are claiming
Two more problems, the prop disks are not alined with the forword bulkhead of the bomb bay. See pictures of the plane sitting on the ground with people all around it and the location of the bay edge.
So, given the many previously posted cross sections of the bomb bays, both photographic and scale drawings that show the bomb bay to be about 9'-2" wide, with the inside racks meeting at the bottom to support the bay doors where they meet in the center and the photographic proof of the walk-way's location some feet above that point and being only 4-6" wide, exactly how many feet does that leve on each side of the bomb bay between the bomb racks as shown in those pictures?

 
Quote    Reply

oldbutnotwise       2/28/2013 2:53:18 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?  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
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
 
Other questions raised by your post are; Dates and time fraims.
"attacked the same targets during the same period "  did you miss this bit?
I did notice this and that is why I asked the very important question about dates and times!
 
If you dont believe me they get your own data its out thier why should i do you work for you try proving your own point for a change, I gave you a starting point
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)
 
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 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
 
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! That is the silliedt argument I have ever heard!
 
then you obviously have never read your own posts
 
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 have access to the same sources I have so YOU look up the data that way you cant accuse me of cherry picking, thats how it works you disagree I provide access to the raw data(the internet) and YOU do your own analysis I know actually looking at the facts is a new idear to you but try it
 
 
Quote    Reply

oldbutnotwise       2/28/2013 3:04:39 AM
ok from Boeings own measure ments we have the outside edge of the wing fillets to the centerline was 4' 7"
so it is impossible for the bay to be bigger than 9'2"
While this may be true, how can you make this deduction based on the above info? You have no way to know where the fillets start and stop on the underside of the plane in relation to the circular cross section of the fuse. Other defects in reason, but not worth going into.
so no answer? as the fillets are external to the fuselage then we know that this gives a maximum value and  we can see fro m the othe views where this fillet ends, but of course as it buggers you claim then you instantly discount it , yet provide NO evidence to disprove it

 
from that 9'2" you need to substract the wing fillet, the fuselarge skin, the fuselarge structure, the bomb racks the walkway and the walkway support structure
Many defects in logic and fact. But again, not worth argueing about. I just ask this; Where does the fillet start on the wing and end on the underside of the fuse?
where you evidence to disprove? you cannot just dismiss it 
 
as there is only 8' 10" between the props that also indicates that the bay is a lot smaler than you are claiming
Two more problems, the prop disks are not alined with the forword bulkhead of the bomb bay.
See pictures of the plane sitting on the ground with people all around it and the location of the bay edge.
 
true but if you look at head on views you can clearly see that theier is clearance between the prop arc and the WIDEST part of the fuselage 

So, given the many previously posted cross sections of the bomb bays, both photographic and scale drawings that show the bomb bay to be about 9'-2" wide,
 
no you have yet to provide ANY such evidence, just your oppion on the pictures and a dubious measurement of a NON scale drawing that may or maynot be accurate 
 
with the inside racks meeting at the bottom to support the bay doors where they meet in the center and the photographic proof of the walk-way's location some feet above that point and being only 4-6" wide, exactly how many feet does that leve on each side of the bomb bay between the bomb racks as shown in those pictures?
 
you tell me its your claim, and the walkway was 6" wide + the frame
 
The bottom line is that therer is NO evidence that a 4000lb was carried internally , or that it was ever even considered and you have yet to provide a SINGLE source that sugests it could, so the rest is symantics
 
Quote    Reply

Belisarius1234    Not enough clearance for...   2/28/2013 9:38:50 AM
a 4000 lb bomb.
 
ROTFLMAO.
 
B.
 
 



While this may be true, how can you make this deduction based on the above info? You have no way to know where the fillets start and stop on the underside of the plane in relation to the circular cross section of the fuse. Other defects in reason, but not worth going into.

 
from that 9'2" you need to substract the wing fillet, the fuselarge skin, the fuselarge structure, the bomb racks the walkway and the walkway support structure
Many defects in logic and fact. But again, not worth argueing about. I just ask this; Where does the fillet start on the wing and end on the underside of the fuse?
 
as there is only 8' 10" between the props that also indicates that the bay is a lot smaler than you are claiming
Two more problems, the prop disks are not alined with the forword bulkhead of the bomb bay. See pictures of the plane sitting on the ground with people all around it and the location of the bay edge.So, given the many previously posted cross sections of the bomb bays, both photographic and scale drawings that show the bomb bay to be about 9'-2" wide, with the inside racks meeting at the bottom to support the bay doors where they meet in the center and the photographic proof of the walk-way's location some feet above that point and being only 4-6" wide, exactly how many feet does that leve on each side of the bomb bay between the bomb racks as shown in those pictures?

 
Quote    Reply

oldbutnotwise       3/1/2013 2:57:04 PM
For further info
 
according to Graham M Simons and Dr Harry Friedman in Boeing B17 the fifteen ton flying fortress
 
the bomb bay was 8' 9" long by 7" wide at its widest so there is NO way a 4000lbs would fit
the available space for bombs were 104" x 37.5" at its widest
 
the largest bomb carried internally was the 2000lbs which the B17 could carry 2 and the B24 4
 
the largest bomb load carried internally was 6 x 1600lbs, the largest recorded bombs were 4500lbs Disney rocket bombs
 
their is no record of the 4000lbs ever being carried operationally
 
the most single bombs that could be carried were 24x100lbs (later these were bundled to enable the carrying  more)
 
the Lancaster could match the range of B17 whilst carrying 12000lbs
 
the Lancaster carried 2000lb/crew member the B17 was 500lbs/crew member
 
they also rate the combat speed of the B17 vs Lanc as 208 vs 228
 
I think Shooter need to read this book
 
 
Quote    Reply

45-Shooter       3/4/2013 6:43:55 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!

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)
  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? The first Wright Cyclones were the best engines in the world when first introduced. They had more power per pound, lasted longer and required less maintenance than all of their other comps! 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
There are no new Alison recips manufactured after the late 40's. All of the socalled "New" Alison V-1710s are actually being put together out of spair parts made durring the war.
   so far everyone who has encounted you believes that your judgement i
s
seriously flawed
Many folks on this board have very bad judgement.







 
Quote    Reply

45-Shooter       3/4/2013 6:47:59 PM

If they were within a week or month of each other, then the missions are data comparable. 
It depends entirely on the exact dates and periods in the war, so yes it is important. Post the dates and let us make up our own minds. 
 
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.



Your asertion that night time missions were as hard as daylight missions is obviously... 
 
Quote    Reply

Belisarius1234    Correct...   3/4/2013 6:53:53 PM
That was the word you looked for, Stuart, when you couldn't quite finish the thought?
 
ROTFLMAO.
 
B,




If they were within a week or month of each other, then the missions are data comparable. 


It depends entirely on the exact dates and periods in the war, so yes it is important. Post the dates and let us make up our own minds. 

 

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.








Your asertion that night time missions were as hard as daylight missions is obviously..."[correct]" (edited insert by Belisaurius to complete the made up Stuart fantasy with a real truth for a change.

 
Quote    Reply



 Latest
 News
 
 Most
 Read
 
 Most
 Commented
 Hot
 Topics