8 ms·

Its amazing what war can do to equal rights. Britain had the planes but it was short on pilots- the battle of Britain was a war of attrition.

WalterBright 8y ago
WW2 military planes were at the limits of a man's strength. Flying those airplanes in combat or in an emergency is very physical. For example, a B-17 could fly with only one outboard engine running. But the pilot could barely hold the rudder in position to do it, and would trade off with the copilot. Women don't have the lower body strength to do it. Flying a damaged B-17 is just not possible without the leg and upper body strength. There was an episode of "Aviation Disasters" where a piston airliner had some severe damage, I don't remember just what, just that the pilot had to desperately muscle the controls for a couple hours. This all changed, of course, with the advent of hydraulic boost. With fully powered surfaces, the "feel forces" on the stick were faked by the "feel computer". By the time I worked on the 757 flight controls, the "feel forces" had been dialed back substantially to accommodate female pilots.
- jcloud_dev 8y ago
  Russian Air Force had a number of female combat pilots during WW2. Some flew fighters and even Pe-2 dive bombers. The last one had controls so hard to move that two women (pilot and navigator) had to join the forces to pull the stick back on take-off.
- loriverkutya 8y ago
  >Women don't have the lower body strength to do it. That is just simply not true. I recommend to start to watch women weightlifting. And this table: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Olympic_records_in_weightlifting#Women's_records https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Olympic_records_in_wei...
- mercurysmessage 8y ago
  Women were simply not allowed roles in these positions in many countries.
  - mcguire 8y ago
    Your point?
- 24gttghh 8y ago
  I would be careful to say Women, as a group, cannot do something because of their physiology. Sure, many women have a hard time flying older planes. I would think many men would have had the same problem. If a woman really wanted to, I should think she could work hard and overcome those difficulties.
  - newswriter99 8y ago
    >I would think many men would have had the same problem But not on average. The average woman is physically weaker than the average man. Which means, on average, women lack the body strength needed. Why is HN getting infested with "muh feelings"? I don't know why people get so offended by basic facts.
    - 24gttghh 8y ago
      The previous poster said "women", not "women on average".
      - newswriter99 8y ago
        Touche. But let's be honest here, it's an implied average. Blame English, or comprehension skills. He also did not say "literally all women" but I don't see anyone here making the case for that either.
        deleted 8y ago
        [deleted]
        24gttghh 8y ago
        I took their language to be implying a weakness in women that I did not think was warranted (emphasis, mine) >WW2 military planes were at the limits of a man's strength. > Women don't have the lower body strength to do it. Flying a damaged B-17 is just not possible without the leg and upper body strength. > By the time I worked on the 757 flight controls, the "feel forces" had been dialed back substantially to accommodate female pilots. The final quote seeming to imply the mechanical feedback from the controls of more modern aircraft were lessened to accommodate female pilots, instead of more likely making it easier for all pilots to operate the aircraft.
- mcguire 8y ago
  Yes. This is why WWII pilots were chosen and trained like NFL offensive linemen. Monsters, the lot of them.
- romwell 8y ago
  >WW2 military planes were at the limits of a man's strength. Citation needed, not all planes were B-17s. Instead of relying on dogmas, the USSR had a very successful all-women night bomber regiment[1] [1]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Night_Witches https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Night_Witches
  - WalterBright 8y ago
    From your source: "The regiment flew in wood-and-canvas Polikarpov U-2 biplanes, a 1928 design intended for use as training aircraft (hence its original uchebnyy designation prefix of "U-") and for crop dusting, which also had a special U-2LNB version for the sort of night harassment attack missions flown by the 588th, and to this day remains the most-produced wood-airframed biplane in aviation history. The planes could carry only six bombs at a time, so eight or more missions per night were often necessary.[6] Although the aircraft were obsolete and slow," Not exactly the heavy, high performance aircraft flown by the other powers. > Citation needed In various accounts I've read, sometimes a pilot will remark how he pulled at the controls with all his strength to recover. Sorry I don't have anything specific. And besides, aircraft designers are well aware of the control forces designed into the aircraft. Since they expected the pilots to be men, why wouldn't they design it at the limit of men's strength if that meant they could take advantage of that strength to make the plane perform better? If I were a combat pilot, I'd want the designer to give me every goddam advantage possible. Wouldn't you? It'd be like telling the Roman soldier "we made your swords shorter and lighter for women soldiers, too bad that puts you at a disadvantage when faced with the enemy who has longer and heavier swords."
    - romwell 8y ago
      I provided a single counter-example to invalidate your claim that WWII-era aircraft required strength that is unreasonable to expect from a woman. The burden of proof is still on you. > Sorry I don't have anything specific. Thank you, that concludes the argument.
      - WalterBright 8y ago
- WalterBright 8y ago
  My source on WW2 aircraft is my father, a B-17 (and later P-47 Thunderbolt and P-51) pilot. The Thunderbolt is a very heavy airplane, you can imagine what it took to fly that beast at its limits.

WalterBright 8y ago

WW2 military planes were at the limits of a man's strength. Flying those airplanes in combat or in an emergency is very physical. For example, a B-17 could fly with only one outboard engine running. But the pilot could barely hold the rudder in position to do it, and would trade off with the copilot. Women don't have the lower body strength to do it. Flying a damaged B-17 is just not possible without the leg and upper body strength. There was an episode of "Aviation Disasters" where a piston airliner had some severe damage, I don't remember just what, just that the pilot had to desperately muscle the controls for a couple hours. This all changed, of course, with the advent of hydraulic boost. With fully powered surfaces, the "feel forces" on the stick were faked by the "feel computer". By the time I worked on the 757 flight controls, the "feel forces" had been dialed back substantially to accommodate female pilots.

jcloud_dev 8y ago
Russian Air Force had a number of female combat pilots during WW2. Some flew fighters and even Pe-2 dive bombers. The last one had controls so hard to move that two women (pilot and navigator) had to join the forces to pull the stick back on take-off.
loriverkutya 8y ago
>Women don't have the lower body strength to do it. That is just simply not true. I recommend to start to watch women weightlifting. And this table: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Olympic_records_in_weightlifting#Women's_records https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Olympic_records_in_wei...
mercurysmessage 8y ago
Women were simply not allowed roles in these positions in many countries.
- mcguire 8y ago
  Your point?
24gttghh 8y ago
I would be careful to say Women, as a group, cannot do something because of their physiology. Sure, many women have a hard time flying older planes. I would think many men would have had the same problem. If a woman really wanted to, I should think she could work hard and overcome those difficulties.
- newswriter99 8y ago
  >I would think many men would have had the same problem But not on average. The average woman is physically weaker than the average man. Which means, on average, women lack the body strength needed. Why is HN getting infested with "muh feelings"? I don't know why people get so offended by basic facts.
  - 24gttghh 8y ago
    The previous poster said "women", not "women on average".
    - newswriter99 8y ago
      Touche. But let's be honest here, it's an implied average. Blame English, or comprehension skills. He also did not say "literally all women" but I don't see anyone here making the case for that either.
      - deleted 8y ago
        [deleted]
      - 24gttghh 8y ago
        I took their language to be implying a weakness in women that I did not think was warranted (emphasis, mine) >WW2 military planes were at the limits of a man's strength. > Women don't have the lower body strength to do it. Flying a damaged B-17 is just not possible without the leg and upper body strength. > By the time I worked on the 757 flight controls, the "feel forces" had been dialed back substantially to accommodate female pilots. The final quote seeming to imply the mechanical feedback from the controls of more modern aircraft were lessened to accommodate female pilots, instead of more likely making it easier for all pilots to operate the aircraft.
mcguire 8y ago
Yes. This is why WWII pilots were chosen and trained like NFL offensive linemen. Monsters, the lot of them.
romwell 8y ago
>WW2 military planes were at the limits of a man's strength. Citation needed, not all planes were B-17s. Instead of relying on dogmas, the USSR had a very successful all-women night bomber regiment[1] [1]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Night_Witches https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Night_Witches
- WalterBright 8y ago
  From your source: "The regiment flew in wood-and-canvas Polikarpov U-2 biplanes, a 1928 design intended for use as training aircraft (hence its original uchebnyy designation prefix of "U-") and for crop dusting, which also had a special U-2LNB version for the sort of night harassment attack missions flown by the 588th, and to this day remains the most-produced wood-airframed biplane in aviation history. The planes could carry only six bombs at a time, so eight or more missions per night were often necessary.[6] Although the aircraft were obsolete and slow," Not exactly the heavy, high performance aircraft flown by the other powers. > Citation needed In various accounts I've read, sometimes a pilot will remark how he pulled at the controls with all his strength to recover. Sorry I don't have anything specific. And besides, aircraft designers are well aware of the control forces designed into the aircraft. Since they expected the pilots to be men, why wouldn't they design it at the limit of men's strength if that meant they could take advantage of that strength to make the plane perform better? If I were a combat pilot, I'd want the designer to give me every goddam advantage possible. Wouldn't you? It'd be like telling the Roman soldier "we made your swords shorter and lighter for women soldiers, too bad that puts you at a disadvantage when faced with the enemy who has longer and heavier swords."
  - romwell 8y ago
    I provided a single counter-example to invalidate your claim that WWII-era aircraft required strength that is unreasonable to expect from a woman. The burden of proof is still on you. > Sorry I don't have anything specific. Thank you, that concludes the argument.
    - WalterBright 8y ago
WalterBright 8y ago
My source on WW2 aircraft is my father, a B-17 (and later P-47 Thunderbolt and P-51) pilot. The Thunderbolt is a very heavy airplane, you can imagine what it took to fly that beast at its limits.