Wingspanner
Airman
- 12
- Aug 27, 2011
I'm getting to the 'teeth grindy' point of frustration with some threads on this forum. It seems that many debates are based around what turn out to be completely subjective judgements on the relative superiority of one aircraft over the other. What drives me to distraction is the way in which otherwise apparently knowledgable contributors let jingoism and bombastic bias (masquerading as patriotism) diminish any sence of logic and instead of considered opinion, people start making bold seeping statements of 'fact'.
I wondered if we could encourage everyone to be a little more balanced - as the 'debate' always seems to break down into what I can only describe as 'fact w@nking' based on paper stats (of which there seem to be many contradictory choices!). I'd like to suggest the following guidelines for anyone who wants a SERIOUS discussion when comparing aircraft and their relative superiority or inferiority:
1. Compare like for like - or acknowledge difference to begin with. It beggars belief that people start hopping about and getting angry over the minutiae of what makes something 'better' when they're not even comparing airframes designed for the same specific purpose. Its like asking which tool is 'better' for making a hole in a wall - a drill or a rifle bullet. It depends what you want to achieve...(and how, why, where and when)
2. QUANTIFY and QUALIFY the aspects which make something 'better' and acknowledge the things which make it worse
3. Acknowledge the impact of chronology and design evolution (so many of these debates are about airframes separated in design or manufacture by several years) - and are you comparing relative airframe marks and developments? (ie. comparing an ME109C with a P51D)
4. Acknowledge the 'human factor' (the most important aspect of 'better' might actually be a factor totally ignored in the endless reams of paper stats - ie: what was the aircraft's historical impact? How easy was it to fly? How did it advance the 'state of the art' in terms of design, how much it COST, ease of production, how was the performace of the machinery influenced by the training of pilots, their morale, their leadership ... etc etc.
5. Acknowledge reliable first hand experience - and also consider the bias of the source (see above) If you don't, then the whole 'debate' becomes rather laughable - and participants are reduced to a bunch of airchair nerds arguing pointlessly about REAL events and artifacts. That often becomes disrespectful to the subject matter. At the end of the day, hardly ANYONE posting here has ANY first hand experience or knowledge of what they're talking about. Chill out and remember that there's barely a cigarette paper beween patriotism and stupid nationalism.
6. Cite sources - and acknowledge those which might not support your case rather than just quoting selectively
7. A proper debate conducted by adults is a means by which to share information
8. If you post an opinion - don't pretend its a fact. If you're speculating, reflect that in the way you're writing. If sentimental reasons lie behind a thought or claim, be honest enough to acknowledge that too.
9. Respect what happened in the real world rather than on paper or on the PC/Xbox/PS3. Consider why. Reflect that in your posts
10. Reflect the fact that very often there will be no winner because speculative questions like this cannot have absolute answers. Its through the consideration of the question and the balance of evidence that we learn more. If you've said your piece and cited your evidence or opinion, don't go on flogging a dead horse. Walk away if you have nothing fresh to add! By having your opinion successfully argued down, you've probably discovered something new.
I know that might all sound rather obvious - but it would be much more useful if everyone was pooling real interesting considerations and historical observations rather than treating a poll or debate like a game of 'top trumps'.
There are some really good posts here by people who know their subject matter and who write in an entertaining way. Lets not drag them down!!! (Debates... not mass-debates
)
I wondered if we could encourage everyone to be a little more balanced - as the 'debate' always seems to break down into what I can only describe as 'fact w@nking' based on paper stats (of which there seem to be many contradictory choices!). I'd like to suggest the following guidelines for anyone who wants a SERIOUS discussion when comparing aircraft and their relative superiority or inferiority:
1. Compare like for like - or acknowledge difference to begin with. It beggars belief that people start hopping about and getting angry over the minutiae of what makes something 'better' when they're not even comparing airframes designed for the same specific purpose. Its like asking which tool is 'better' for making a hole in a wall - a drill or a rifle bullet. It depends what you want to achieve...(and how, why, where and when)
2. QUANTIFY and QUALIFY the aspects which make something 'better' and acknowledge the things which make it worse
3. Acknowledge the impact of chronology and design evolution (so many of these debates are about airframes separated in design or manufacture by several years) - and are you comparing relative airframe marks and developments? (ie. comparing an ME109C with a P51D)
4. Acknowledge the 'human factor' (the most important aspect of 'better' might actually be a factor totally ignored in the endless reams of paper stats - ie: what was the aircraft's historical impact? How easy was it to fly? How did it advance the 'state of the art' in terms of design, how much it COST, ease of production, how was the performace of the machinery influenced by the training of pilots, their morale, their leadership ... etc etc.
5. Acknowledge reliable first hand experience - and also consider the bias of the source (see above) If you don't, then the whole 'debate' becomes rather laughable - and participants are reduced to a bunch of airchair nerds arguing pointlessly about REAL events and artifacts. That often becomes disrespectful to the subject matter. At the end of the day, hardly ANYONE posting here has ANY first hand experience or knowledge of what they're talking about. Chill out and remember that there's barely a cigarette paper beween patriotism and stupid nationalism.
6. Cite sources - and acknowledge those which might not support your case rather than just quoting selectively
7. A proper debate conducted by adults is a means by which to share information
8. If you post an opinion - don't pretend its a fact. If you're speculating, reflect that in the way you're writing. If sentimental reasons lie behind a thought or claim, be honest enough to acknowledge that too.
9. Respect what happened in the real world rather than on paper or on the PC/Xbox/PS3. Consider why. Reflect that in your posts
10. Reflect the fact that very often there will be no winner because speculative questions like this cannot have absolute answers. Its through the consideration of the question and the balance of evidence that we learn more. If you've said your piece and cited your evidence or opinion, don't go on flogging a dead horse. Walk away if you have nothing fresh to add! By having your opinion successfully argued down, you've probably discovered something new.
I know that might all sound rather obvious - but it would be much more useful if everyone was pooling real interesting considerations and historical observations rather than treating a poll or debate like a game of 'top trumps'.
There are some really good posts here by people who know their subject matter and who write in an entertaining way. Lets not drag them down!!! (Debates... not mass-debates
)
