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: How to judge what the best fighter plane is?
45-Shooter    1/3/2013 5:09:26 PM
I would list the following traits in the order of their importance; 1. Cruising speed under combat conditions. 2. Range/Persistence under combat conditions. 3. Flight qualities, specifically the ability to point the nose at the target easily and a very high rate of roll. 4. CL Guns with high MV/BC and rates of fire. 5. Pitch response, IE the rate at which you can load the plane. 6. Climb at Military Power. In WW-II terms, that means ~75-80% throttle, rich mixture and appropriate pitch on the prop.( A setting that can be held for at least 30 minutes!) 7. Top speed! To escape or run down the target. 8. Lastly the ability to turn in the so called "Dog Fight"! After you rate these choices, I'll mark the list with what I think is the strength of each atribute.
 
Quote    Reply

Show Only Poster Name and Title     Newest to Oldest
Pages: PREV  1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38   NEXT
oldbutnotwise       3/7/2013 1:50:35 PM
I have found that "The Ban" is the last refuge of those who can not argue the facts WO resorting to innuendo and Ad Hominym attacks.
maybe if it was an isolated case but when it is multiple sites then a trend appears, it becomes a last resort to alter the behaviour of a poster, ever one of these sites gave you chances to adjust your behaviour (not ideas but the way you refuse to listen to counter arguments and to provide proof of your arguments) but time and time again you refuse to abide by the accepted rules of debate until patience is exhausted and you get banned.
 
people on these sites have bent over backward to explain things to you but to no effect, and when every one says one thing and ONE person says another then either that one needs to provide evidence or at least consider the possibility that they are wrong, you however lie, misrepresent and ignore facts and even warp other peoples statements in attempts to justify your posts
 
Quote    Reply

45-Shooter       3/8/2013 1:10:31 AM

I have found that "The Ban" is the last refuge of those who can not argue the facts WO resorting to innuendo and Ad Hominym attacks.
maybe if it was an isolated case but when it is multiple sites then a trend appears, it becomes a last resort to alter the behaviour of a poster, ever one of these sites gave you chances to adjust your behaviour (not ideas but the way you refuse to listen to counter arguments and to provide proof of your arguments) but time and time again you refuse to abide by the accepted rules of debate until patience is exhausted and you get banned.
I have noted that the people on those sites are all let us say, more closed minded, Or more "liberal" in their leanings? Conservitives do not Ban the people they disagree with, we argue the point on it's merrits. Liberals can not do this because they have no valid points. Like the B-17 Vs Lancaster debate; No one has ever answered the simple facts that B-17s flew VERY MANY more missions with about the same number of planes in Europe, <8,400 IIRC, Vs <8,000 Lancs, dropped >5% more tons of bombs and lost about half as many crewmen  while flying the most dangerous missions in broad daylight? Just in nice round numbers.



It is these very big ideas that seem to get swept under the table and ignored while little tiny details get argued to death, like wether or not a 4,000 pound MC bomb <34" OD would fit in a B-17 bomb bay, regardless of whether it was ever done or not! The first are important and the second is the side show. How about we get back to the main point?
 
 
Quote    Reply

Belisarius1234    Simple.   3/8/2013 1:24:44 AM
Ears and eyes open and your mouth SHUT.
 
LEARN.
 
B.
 
 
Quote    Reply

oldbutnotwise       3/8/2013 3:08:13 AM
I have found that "The Ban" is the last refuge of those who can not argue the facts WO resorting to innuendo and Ad Hominym attacks.
maybe if it was an isolated case but when it is multiple sites then a trend appears, it becomes a last resort to alter the behaviour of a poster, ever one of these sites gave you chances to adjust your behaviour (not ideas but the way you refuse to listen to counter arguments and to provide proof of your arguments) but time and time again you refuse to abide by the accepted rules of debate until patience is exhausted and you get banned.
I have noted that the people on those sites are all let us say, more closed minded,
 
no those people will listen to any argument and will given the evidence adjust thier views, you however have show a willingness to do neither, you believe so whole heartedly that you are always right (despite admitting that you do not do the research) that you cannot comprehend that others may have a point so spout discredited arguments untill everyone is so fed up of you that you get canned
 
 Or more "liberal" in their leanings? Conservitives do not Ban the people they disagree with, we argue the point on it's merrits.
ha you argue on merit thats a laugh you are so closed minded and unable to see other views that its a wonder that you are sane (you are arnt you?)
 
 Liberals can not do this because they have no valid points.
 
so you are a liberal? as this would describ you perfectly
 
Like the B-17 Vs Lancaster debate; No one has ever answered the simple facts that B-17s flew VERY MANY more missions with about the same number of planes in Europe, <8,400 IIRC, Vs <8,000 Lancs, dropped >5% more tons of bombs and lost about half as many crewmen while flying the most dangerous missions in broad daylight? Just in nice round numbers.
 
and we have answered this repeatedly but YOU choose to ignore the plane fact that unlike the Lanc the B17 had the majority of those missions late in the war against little or no opposition but no that wouldnt fit you world view so gets ignored


It is these very big ideas that seem to get swept under the table and ignored while little tiny details get argued to death, like wether or not a 4,000 pound MC bomb <34" OD would fit in a B-17 bomb bay, regardless of whether it was ever done or not! The first are important and the second is the side show. How about we get back to the main point?
 
but you will not accept that you are wrong on the little issues so what chance of you admitting you are wrong on big ones?
 
I have notice that they only become little issues when you cannot support your argument
 
Oh and I still remember posting a quote that the RAF figures may not incude incendaries a quote that you have never managed to dispute
 
Quote    Reply

45-Shooter       3/12/2013 1:51:58 AM

Like the B-17 Vs Lancaster debate; No one has ever answered the simple facts that B-17s flew VERY MANY more missions with about the same number of planes in Europe, <8,400 IIRC, Vs <8,000 Lancs, dropped >5% more tons of bombs and lost about half as many crewmen while flying the most dangerous missions in broad daylight? Just in nice round numbers.

It is these very big ideas that seem to get swept under the table and ignored while little tiny details get argued to death, like wether or not a 4,000 pound MC bomb <34" OD would fit in a B-17 bomb bay, regardless of whether it was ever done or not! The first are important and the second is the side show. How about we get back to the main point?

but you will not accept that you are wrong on the little issues so what chance of you admitting you are wrong on big ones?
But, I am not wrong! Those are the facts. The RAF stated that the night missions were so much safer that they could not continue the war, if forced to continue daylight bombing beyond the range of fighter escort. They stated that night missions were very much less dangerous, not I. So argue that with them. 

Oh and I still remember posting a quote that the RAF figures may not incude incendaries a quote that you have never managed to dispute
  But I did dispute that successfuly, you must have missed it! Incendiaries were counted towards the bomb loads and many other refferances proove this. Do you remember the post with the line art of the Lanc's Bomb bay scematics? The one that showed all the various loads that could be carried, ALONG WITH THEIR WEIGHTS? That was not the only one, but just one of the most satisfying!



 
Quote    Reply

Maratabc       3/12/2013 2:20:08 AM
You ARE wrong.
 
Quote    Reply

oldbutnotwise       3/12/2013 8:48:12 AM
Like the B-17 Vs Lancaster debate; No one has ever answered the simple facts that B-17s flew VERY MANY more missions with about the same number of planes in Europe, <8,400 IIRC, Vs <8,000 Lancs, dropped >5% more tons of bombs and lost about half as many crewmen while flying the most dangerous missions in broad daylight? Just in nice round numbers.
 
oh yes bombing rail yards in France against ZERO opposition is comparable to bombing Berlin - get real, one squadron of B17 did two mission in one week in 43, the first against a french airfield resulted in 4 holes in one aircraft and no other damage, the second two days later against Berlin resulted in the loss of ALL 12 aircraft, so of course the two are comparable arnt they

It is these very big ideas that seem to get swept under the table and ignored while little tiny details get argued to death, like wether or not a 4,000 pound MC bomb <34" OD would fit in a B-17 bomb bay, regardless of whether it was ever done or not! The first are important and the second is the side show. How about we get back to the main point?
 
no we will wait for you to admit you are wrong if you will not admit such a minor point then we have zero chance of you admitting you are wrong on the major one, This inflated idea of your as to whether you get to decide what or what is not discussed, sorry to inform you but you do not get to decide what is important and what is not, and spouting lies then avoiding be called on them is so dishonest
 
But, I am not wrong! Those are the facts.
 
no they are not in the real world the facts are that it didnt happen and couldnt happen
 
The RAF stated that the night missions were so much safer that they could not continue the war, if forced to continue daylight bombing beyond the range of fighter escort. They stated that night missions were very much less dangerous, not I. So argue that with them. 
 
what in that statement is your point, the RAF and USAAF state that UNESCORTED DAY BOMBING of long range targets cannot be sustained

Oh and I still remember posting a quote that the RAF figures may not incude incendaries a quote that you have never managed to dispute
  But I did dispute that successfuly, you must have missed it!
 
I certainly did miss it and not only that I looked back at the thread and what do you know nothing thier that disputes it, so I am affraid that disputing it in your own mind doesnt count 
 
Incendiaries were counted towards the bomb loads and many other refferances proove this.
 
Yet somehow you cannot find any such references, how convienant
 
Do you remember the post with the line art of the Lanc's Bomb bay scematics? The one that showed all the various loads that could be carried, ALONG WITH THEIR WEIGHTS? That was not the only one, but just one of the most satisfying!
 
did you? because I dont remember any of them being 4000lbs and what has that got to do with tonnage figures?
 
Quote    Reply

45-Shooter       3/22/2013 1:00:00 AM

Like the B-17 Vs Lancaster debate; No one has ever answered the simple facts that B-17s flew VERY MANY more missions with about the same number of planes in Europe, <8,400 IIRC, Vs <8,000 Lancs, dropped >5% more tons of bombs and lost about half as many crewmen while flying the most dangerous missions in broad daylight? Just in nice round numbers.
   
It is these very big ideas that seem to get swept under the table and ignored while little tiny details get argued to death, like wether or not a 4,000 pound MC bomb <34" OD would fit in a B-17 bomb bay, regardless of whether it was ever done or not! The first are important and the second is the side show. How about we get back to the main point?
no we will wait for you to admit you are wrong But I am not wrong above! Both the extream losses and size of the bomb and bomb bay are facts never refuted! But, I am not wrong! Those are the facts.
 
no they are not in the real world the facts are that it didnt happen and couldnt happen
This is the part I like, you say it did not happen and therefore could not happen, with out ever addressing the size of the bomb or the bay volume it has to fit into! Right! 
The RAF stated that the night missions were so much safer that they could not continue the war, if forced to continue daylight bombing beyond the range of fighter escort. They stated that night missions were very much less dangerous, not I. So argue that with them. 
Incendiaries were counted towards the bomb loads and many other refferances proove this.

Yet somehow you cannot find any such references, how convienant
  Not exactly true? I did refferance the loading diagrams with their listed bomb load wieghts. Those diagrams clearly show that the incendies were included in the wieghts of bombs dropped.
Do you remember the post with the line art of the Lanc's Bomb bay scematics? The one that showed all the various loads that could be carried, ALONG WITH THEIR WEIGHTS? That was not the only one, but just on e of the most satisfying!

What a shame. You spend your time argueing minutia and ignoring the big ideas!
1. The RAF-BC lost >55,000 crewmen dead, KIA!
2. The RAF-BC dropped ~608,000 tons of bombs from Lancasters over a six year period.
3. The USAAF dropped >640,000 tons of bombs from B-17s over a ~2-1/2 year time fraim.
4. The RAF-BC dropped, at least according to the RAF's Strategic Bombing Survey Unit less than 1,000,000 tons of bombs durring the entire war.
5. In less than half that time, the USAAF dropped ~1,400,000, or is it 1,600,000 tons of bombs, this late at night, I can not remember which. This is the important part, they did so by flying about twice as many missions in about 40% as many months while lossing much less than half as many men to enemy action!
 
 
Quote    Reply

oldbutnotwise       3/22/2013 8:29:56 AM
Like the B-17 Vs Lancaster debate; No one has ever answered the simple facts that B-17s flew VERY MANY more missions with about the same number of planes in Europe, <8,400 IIRC, Vs <8,000 Lancs, dropped >5% more tons of bombs and lost about half as many crewmen while flying the most dangerous missions in broad daylight? Just in nice round numbers.
 
explained I depth but it would seem you are too stupid to understand
   
It is these very big ideas that seem to get swept under the table and ignored while little tiny details get argued to death, like wether or not a 4,000 pound MC bomb <34" OD would fit in a B-17 bomb bay, regardless of whether it was ever done or not! The first are important and the second is the side show. How about we get back to the main point?
no we will wait for you to admit you are wrong But I am not wrong above! Both the extream losses and size of the bomb and bomb bay are facts never refuted! But, I am not wrong! Those are the facts.
 
facts clearly says you are 
 
 
no they are not in the real world the facts are that it didnt happen and couldnt happen      
This is the part I like, you say it did not happen and therefore could not happen, with out ever addressing the size of the bomb or the bay volume it has to fit into! Right! 
 
same old same old, we provide evidence he provides his opinion
 
The RAF stated that the night missions were so much safer that they could not continue the war, if forced to continue daylight bombing beyond the range of fighter escort. They stated that night missions were very much less dangerous, not I. So argue that with them. 
Incendiaries were counted towards the bomb loads and many other refferances proove this.
 
not according to you you have said this many times and yet have never provided any source so will now disregard until evidence supplied

Yet somehow you cannot find any such references, how convienant      
  Not exactly true? I did refferance the loading diagrams with their listed bomb load wieghts. Those diagrams clearly show that the incendies were included in the wieghts of bombs dropped.
yet those weights had the number as 12000+ how do you reconcile that with your < 8000lbs average the two do not agree so one or the other must be in error
 
Do you remember the post with the line art of the Lanc's Bomb bay scematics? The one that showed all the various loads that could be carried, ALONG WITH THEIR WEIGHTS? That was not the only one, but just        on       e of the most satisfying!    
answered above

What a shame. You spend your time argueing minutia and ignoring the big ideas!
1. The RAF-BC lost >55,000 crewmen dead, KIA!

2. The RAF-BC dropped ~608,000 tons of bombs from Lancasters over a six year period.
3. The USAAF dropped >640,000 tons of bombs from B-17s over a ~2-1/2 year time fraim.
the USAAF dropped 640000 tons from all heavies operating from the UK now I have seen reports that B24 dropped twice that of the B17 so that would put the B17 tonnage from the UK at near 200000lbs agains thE Lancasters 640000lbs wow big win for the Lanc
 
 
4. The RAF-BC dropped, at least according to the RAF's Strategic Bombing Survey Unit less than 1,000,000 tons of bombs durring the entire war.
According to official figures the RAF dropped 1.5x the tonnage of the USAAF
5. In less than half that time, the USAAF dropped ~1,400,000, or is it 1,600,000 tons of bombs, this late at night, I can not remember which. This is the important part, they did so by flying about twice as many missions in about 40% as many months while lossing much less than half as many men to enemy action!
 
this last statement is so wrong its pointless to correct
 
 
Quote    Reply

Maratabc    test    3/22/2013 8:50:00 AM
test
 
Quote    Reply
PREV  1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38   NEXT



 Latest
 News
 
 Most
 Read
 
 Most
 Commented
 Hot
 Topics