3 ms·

>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 suc

>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
    1928 designs are not WW2 designs. "With hydraulic flight control systems, the aircraft's size and performance are limited by economics rather than a pilot's muscular strength." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aircraft_flight_control_system https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aircraft_flight_control_system The first airplane with hydraulic boost was the 1943 Constellation. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lockheed_Constellation https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lockheed_Constellation There you go. The B-17, P-51 and P-47 did not have hydraulic boost.
    - romwell 8y ago
      >1928 designs are not WW2 designs. How is this relevant? You said - quote: "WW2 military planes". That is, planes operated during the war. These Polikarpov bombers were not just operated during the war, they were highly successful in their missions. Please stay on topic here. Again, we know that women were OK piloting fighter planes like the Spitfire, or attaining the ace status on planes like Yak-1[1] (1940 design, by the way), or flying bombers like Pe-2 (also a 40's design). That's yet more specific counter-examples to your claim, for which you haven't yet provided any support. Hundreds of designs[2] took part in air combat in WW2. You'd have to crunch a lot of data for your claim to have any footing (to even argue about most planes of that era, which were all wildly different). Is this an issue of pride? Can't you simply admit being wrong about women being too weak to fight in these machines? The history is not on your side here. [1]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet_women_in_World_War_II#Pilots https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet_women_in_World_War_II#P... [2]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_aircraft_of_World_War_II https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_aircraft_of_World_War_...
      - WalterBright 8y ago
        > How is this relevant? 1928 stringbags are not what I was talking about. If you can't see that, that's ok. > we know that women were OK piloting fighter planes like the Spitfire For transport use, which is straight and level flying. It's utterly different from combat maneuvering or emergency situations. > Can't you simply admit being wrong about women being too weak to fight in these machines? The history is not on your side here. If you can find women fighting air-to-air combat in Spits, P-51s, or P-47s, and winning, you'd have history on your side. The Soviet women flew Yak-1s, which were only about 2/3 the weight of a P-51. This translates into lower control forces needed. Yak-1s were also much slower, again translating into lower control forces. It's no surprise that hydraulic boost was added after WW2 as weight and speed increased further. If you want to believe that control forces have nothing to do with weight, speed, and performance, that women are as strong as men, that hydraulic boost was added just for fun, that's your privilege.

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
  1928 designs are not WW2 designs. "With hydraulic flight control systems, the aircraft's size and performance are limited by economics rather than a pilot's muscular strength." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aircraft_flight_control_system https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aircraft_flight_control_system The first airplane with hydraulic boost was the 1943 Constellation. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lockheed_Constellation https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lockheed_Constellation There you go. The B-17, P-51 and P-47 did not have hydraulic boost.
  - romwell 8y ago
    >1928 designs are not WW2 designs. How is this relevant? You said - quote: "WW2 military planes". That is, planes operated during the war. These Polikarpov bombers were not just operated during the war, they were highly successful in their missions. Please stay on topic here. Again, we know that women were OK piloting fighter planes like the Spitfire, or attaining the ace status on planes like Yak-1[1] (1940 design, by the way), or flying bombers like Pe-2 (also a 40's design). That's yet more specific counter-examples to your claim, for which you haven't yet provided any support. Hundreds of designs[2] took part in air combat in WW2. You'd have to crunch a lot of data for your claim to have any footing (to even argue about most planes of that era, which were all wildly different). Is this an issue of pride? Can't you simply admit being wrong about women being too weak to fight in these machines? The history is not on your side here. [1]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet_women_in_World_War_II#Pilots https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet_women_in_World_War_II#P... [2]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_aircraft_of_World_War_II https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_aircraft_of_World_War_...
    - WalterBright 8y ago
      > How is this relevant? 1928 stringbags are not what I was talking about. If you can't see that, that's ok. > we know that women were OK piloting fighter planes like the Spitfire For transport use, which is straight and level flying. It's utterly different from combat maneuvering or emergency situations. > Can't you simply admit being wrong about women being too weak to fight in these machines? The history is not on your side here. If you can find women fighting air-to-air combat in Spits, P-51s, or P-47s, and winning, you'd have history on your side. The Soviet women flew Yak-1s, which were only about 2/3 the weight of a P-51. This translates into lower control forces needed. Yak-1s were also much slower, again translating into lower control forces. It's no surprise that hydraulic boost was added after WW2 as weight and speed increased further. If you want to believe that control forces have nothing to do with weight, speed, and performance, that women are as strong as men, that hydraulic boost was added just for fun, that's your privilege.