Early Access: Why aircraft comparisons make no sense (except when they do)
Added 2020-02-18 18:28:18 +0000 UTCHey all,
Early access to this weeks episode is live. This one was together with MHV. Enjoy!
o7
Bis
Comments
I have been putting together my Father’s service records and some memoirs he wrote up. I know that you are not real fond of memoirs. However, through the course of his service memoirs he mentions either seeing a number of men die in crashes or men in his training squadron killed — 37 in total. The number of seriously injured numbered 20+. As he used to say — hell we were all 18 to 21 and very young and naive.
Michael Moran
2020-03-10 21:50:32 +0000 UTCThanks for another wonderfully thoughtful discussion. My best to you guest.
Bill Lemmond
2020-03-08 02:22:05 +0000 UTCThat's a good idea. I happened to have found some data on this from the Luftwaffe in the archives recently but I have to sort through all the pictures and data. Might take some time
Military Aviation History
2020-02-23 07:21:58 +0000 UTCFor future consideration — how about something on breaking down training, accidents and combat losses. I know the US breakdowns are quite eye opening., but I wonder about other nations’ experiences. The US lost around 60,000 aircraft — roughly 1/3 combat, 1/3 accidents in US, and 1/3 accidents overseas. 15,000 air crewman died in training accidents alone. I remember my dentist growing up talked some about being an F4U Cosair pilot. He said he was 2 for 2. He shot down 2 Japanese planes, but wrecked 2 F4Us in landing accidents.
Michael Moran
2020-02-22 22:11:20 +0000 UTCYup, comparisons can be made if the context is defined. Sadly, discussions often lack nuance as they progress.
Military Aviation History
2020-02-22 20:02:43 +0000 UTCThanks Michael, appreciate it a lot!
Military Aviation History
2020-02-22 20:01:00 +0000 UTCThe A6M vs F4F video is indeed excellent. I have sent the link to numerous friends trying to do a little recruiting for your channel.
Michael Moran
2020-02-22 19:59:07 +0000 UTCI hope you are wearing asbestos pants, because I am sure there will be some who will want to roast you rear. ^_^ So, after viewing this good discussion first time (will watch again). YES, direct comparisons are rife with equivalency errors HOWEVER it is possible to make sound comparison discussion, BUT in narrow context (not the overall broad context often argued over). Taking your Spit vs Mustang (with is an very good example, BTW), the Mustang is very much a British aircraft (ordered by UK, first used by UK, heavily modified by UK, so the British influence is all over this design before the USA gets heavily involved). UK was seeking more fighters and wanted the P-40. NAA said they can make a new one and UK allowed them free reign to design it. Point is, the UK was expecting a new fighter like the P-40, Spitfire, or Hurricane. What they got instead was something markedly different in capabilities than those 3. A valid discussion topic on expectations vs what resulted (and that some pilots preferred Spit over Mustang (USA as not really using P-51 at time), IMHO. (Side note: Luftwaffe aces preferred 109 over 190, that is a interesting topic) I also think MHV A6M vs F4F comparison is good, because the purpose and capabilities and time are nearly identical. But yes, most examples bantered about are so far off as to be ridiculous (as mentioned early Bf 110 vs late P-38)
Joe Kudrna
2020-02-19 14:18:14 +0000 UTC
