3 ms·

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 o

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.
    - romwell 8y ago
      >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. If you said that women weren't strong enough to fly these specific aircraft in combat missions, we would be having a different argument. I don't doubt that it would be very hard to find women who would have the strength to pilot some WW2 aircraft in combat missions. That is not what you wrote. It may well be the case that the Spitfire is an example of such aircraft, but the Yak is not, as evidenced by the provided links. But if you prefer to fight straw men all day long, that's your privilege.

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.
  - romwell 8y ago
    >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. If you said that women weren't strong enough to fly these specific aircraft in combat missions, we would be having a different argument. I don't doubt that it would be very hard to find women who would have the strength to pilot some WW2 aircraft in combat missions. That is not what you wrote. It may well be the case that the Spitfire is an example of such aircraft, but the Yak is not, as evidenced by the provided links. But if you prefer to fight straw men all day long, that's your privilege.